ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Scottish Business Leaders: Independence Debate

Nicholas Soames: What steps his Department is taking to encourage Scottish business leaders to participate in the independence debate.

Alistair Carmichael: I speak to businesses from across Scotland regularly and frequently. In those meetings we highlight the importance of the decision the Scottish people will make on 18 September, and encourage them to get involved in this important debate.

Nicholas Soames: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent intervention of Bob Dudley, the chief executive of British Petroleum—which, after all, has a major stake in Scotland—whose views should be taken seriously? Does he agree that other business leaders with a big interest in Scotland’s future should follow that example, and set out clearly the implications and consequences of independence for their employees, suppliers, and shareholders?

Alistair Carmichael: I have seen and studied the intervention from Bob Dudley yesterday. The terms of that intervention do not surprise me at all as they very much reflect the concerns expressed to me when I speak to businessmen and women across Scotland who represent businesses of all sizes. They all tell me the same: they see independence as being bad for their business. It brings uncertainties, uncertainty means risk, and that is bad for their business future.

Brian H Donohoe: Has the Secretary of State had any meetings with Sir Tom Hunter, who has been pretty vocal about the whole issue, and, if he has not, will he have such a meeting?

Alistair Carmichael: I recently met Sir Tom Hunter at a business breakfast organised by the Prime Minister in No. 10 Downing street. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the recent initiative by Sir Tom, which is interesting
	and valuable, and sits well with the efforts of Her Majesty’s Government to ensure a solid base of information to inform the electorate about the decision they are being asked to take.

Caroline Dinenage: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he is aware of the fears and concerns of businesses about the uncertainty posed by an independent Scotland, not only the currency but the fact that interest rates and borrowing costs could be set from outside Scotland?

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed, the hon. Lady makes a point that was made eloquently—and, I thought, in a very measured way—by the Governor of the Bank of England in his speech last week in Edinburgh. He made the point that a currency union such as that proposed inevitably involves ceding some degree of national sovereignty—the very opposite of what independence is supposed to be about. One wonders why any nationalist would, in all sincerity, genuinely want one.

Angus Robertson: This week the Financial Times reported that an independent Scotland should have healthier state finances than the rest of the UK. So far, more than 1,200 business owners and directors have declared their support for a yes vote by joining the pro-independence business group, Business for Scotland. Does the Secretary of State recognise their role in the Scottish economy and welcome their contribution to the referendum debate?

Alistair Carmichael: I will, of course, speak to businessmen and women of all views at any time in Scotland. The difficulty for the hon. Gentleman is that the most recent polling exercise undertaken in the business community showed that roughly three quarters of business people in Scotland intend to vote no. They know that independence would be bad for their business.

Angus Robertson: All the evidence from polling in recent weeks shows a substantial swing to the yes campaign, and the polls also show that by a majority of 4:1, the public wish to see a debate between the Prime Minister and First Minister Alex Salmond. How long can the Prime Minister continue supporting everybody else becoming part of the debate, but run away from one himself?

Alistair Carmichael: Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, we know exactly why the nationalists want that debate between the Prime Minister and Alex Salmond: they are trying to set the decision up as a contest between Scotland and England, which it absolutely is not. This is about Scotland’s best-placed constitutional future, and it is to be decided by Scots in Scotland.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the First Minister dismissed Mr Dudley’s remarks as being purely a personal opinion. In the light of that, may we take it that all those in the business sector who have apparently subscribed to independence can have their opinions dismissed in the same way?

Alistair Carmichael: I would dismiss nobody’s opinion and I would engage with people of all shades of opinion across this debate, but the fact is that Bob Dudley is not
	a lone voice. He is part of a growing chorus from the business community in Scotland who highlight the dangers that would come from independence. They all say the same—it would be a risk to their business because of the uncertainty of the future position of the currency and membership of the European Union. On those two key issues, the nationalists have no comfort for business.

Margaret Curran: As the Secretary of State has said, it is welcome that the chief executive of BP and the outgoing chief executive of Sainsbury’s have both spelled out substantial concerns about independence. Does the Secretary of State agree that all businesses, trade unions and voluntary organisations have a right to be heard without insult, intimidation or fear of the consequences, regardless of which side of the debate they are on?

Alistair Carmichael: I do, absolutely, and in that regard I commend the efforts of the Scottish Daily Mail, which in recent weeks has sought to highlight the poison coming into the debate from some of the cyber-interventions. Other hon. Members have also raised this issue. Whatever the outcome on 18 September we will all have to work together in Scotland for its best future, and that will not be possible if we allow the well to be poisoned in the way the cyber-Nats in particular seem determined to do.

Margaret Curran: I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but may I press him a little further? Business leaders have told me of intimidatory tactics being used in an attempt to stop them intervening in the independence debate. One leader of a FTSE company told Robert Peston of the BBC that the Scottish Government “became very aggressive” when he tried to raise concerns about independence. Just yesterday, Bob Dudley of BP was dismissed by the yes campaign as “a British nationalist”. Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning the pattern of behaviour that we are beginning to see in Scotland and say, in the strongest possible terms, that it has no place for us Scots as we debate our future?

Alistair Carmichael: I agree with the hon. Lady on that point in the very strongest terms. She knows as well as I do that the incidents she highlights are by no means isolated—we hear them anecdotally all the time. I encourage anyone who is bullied or intimidated in that way to follow the example of Chris Whatley, an academic from Dundee university who appeared at a Better Together event before Christmas, following which a Scottish Government Minister was on the phone to his employers saying he should be silenced. That is deplorable and no way in which to conduct the debate on Scotland’s future.

Housing Benefit

Eilidh Whiteford: What recent discussions he has had with Scottish local authorities on changes to housing benefit.

David Mundell: In recent months, I have met every local authority in Scotland, and most of them twice, as part of an ongoing dialogue with local authorities and
	other stakeholders in Scotland on what the impact of welfare reforms and the challenges of implementation have been for them, their services and their tenants.

Eilidh Whiteford: The Minister will therefore know that 80% of the households in Scotland affected by the bedroom tax are the home of someone with a disability. He knows that there is a mismatch between the available housing stock and the needs of tenants, and he knows that Scottish MPs, including Government Back Benchers, voted overwhelmingly against this policy. Will the Government now lift the legal restrictions on discretionary housing payments to allow the Scottish Government to mitigate the impact of this nonsense of a policy?

David Mundell: What I do know is that the hon. Lady has a brass neck. She is a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, but fails to take up her place. This issue was debated in detail yesterday and if she had been present she would know that the Scottish Government already have the powers to take measures if they genuinely believe there are concerns with welfare policies.

Alan Reid: I am pleased that the Government listened when I pointed out the problems that withdrawal of the spare room subsidy, also known as the bedroom tax, would cause for tenants on islands and in remote parts of the mainland. I am delighted that the Government have given more than £400,000 to Argyll and Bute council to help affected tenants, and I hope that that generous allocation will continue in future years.

David Mundell: I commend the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the specific issues raised in island communities and by rurality generally, and that is why the Government have provided additional discretionary housing payments for rural areas.

Single-tier Pension

Fiona O'Donnell: What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on increased national insurance costs for public bodies in Scotland resulting from the introduction of the single-tier pension.

David Mundell: Ministers in the UK Government and Scottish Government are in regular dialogue on issues relating to funding public bodies in Scotland. This Government believe that pension reform is essential because people are living longer and we all need to save for retirement.

Fiona O'Donnell: Scottish councils are struggling to protect local services, because the Scottish National party Government are not fully funding the council tax freeze. Will the Minister, unlike the SNP, stand up for Scottish councils and make representations to relevant ministries to protect Scottish councils from this budgetary time bomb?

David Mundell: I note what the hon. Lady says. I am due to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and will ensure that her comments are on the agenda for that meeting.

Anne Begg: It would be useful if the Minister, in his discussions with COSLA, pushed for a statutory override that would help companies in Scotland to manage the move to single-tier pensions, because that will have an effect when they are not able to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme.

David Mundell: The hon. Lady is the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee and we take her comments very seriously. I will ensure that they are also part of the discussions with COSLA.

Household Energy Bills

Katy Clark: What change there has been in average household energy bills in Scotland since May 2010.

Alistair Carmichael: Rising energy bills are a serious concern for consumers in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. We are sustaining vital financial support for the most vulnerable consumers. Our reforms are opening up the market to competition and we are working to ensure that suppliers put customers on the cheapest tariff possible.

Katy Clark: As the Minister knows, energy prices have risen dramatically since the coalition came to power. In rural and island communities people pay an even greater proportion of their income on fuel. Citizens Advice Scotland says that there was a sevenfold increase last year in people approaching it for advice on mis-selling in the energy sector. Does he not agree that it is now time for a radical reform of the energy sector, and for a price freeze until we put that reform in place?

Alistair Carmichael: I say gently to the hon. Lady, who I know has taken a long-term interest in and has a notable record on this issue, that the phenomenon of energy price increases did not just start in 2010. It was a feature of the years of the Labour Government too, as a consequence of the reduction in the number of companies operating in the market. That problem would be recreated if we were to undertake her policy of a price freeze. We have already seen the number of energy companies operating rise from six to 14. A price freeze would be a real threat to that.

Anas Sarwar: It is now clear that we have two Governments who are choosing to side with the big energy companies rather than people struggling with the cost of living crisis. Is it not now clear that the only way for families across the UK to see some relief in their cost of living, with a freezing of their bills and breaking up the monopoly of the big six energy companies, is to vote no in the referendum and return a Labour Government in 2015?

Alistair Carmichael: I certainly agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s prescription that a no vote in September is very important, but I have to remind him that in one year alone under Labour there was a 20% increase in energy prices, and there was no suggestion of price freeze then. When Labour Members were in government, they knew the reality: a price freeze would
	see prices going up before the price freeze and prices going up again afterwards. We are delivering help to vulnerable people in the here and now.

Michael Weir: Whatever the headline average price increase, the fact is that that hides a multitude of sins. A constituent who approached me this week is a low electricity user and is facing a 50% increase in his unit cost. Others are finding that they are being hammered by high standing charges. Is it not time for the Government to take action and stop these practices?

Alistair Carmichael: These are all reasons why it is important to improve transparency in the market and the range of tariffs available. That has been the result of the action this Government have been taking. Under the previous Government there were at one point no fewer than 400 different tariffs available, so it was no surprise that people were confused. Simplicity is the way ahead and the Government are working on that, along with the regulator.

Gordon Banks: We know that energy bills have rocketed under the Secretary of State’s Government and that Labour will freeze energy prices. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said this morning, one third of British investment in renewables comes to Scotland, but Scots contribute less than one tenth. That means that the rest of the UK supports Scottish renewable generation through their bills. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best future for renewables in Scotland, and the best way to keep costs down for Scotland, is for Scotland to stay part of the United Kingdom?

Alistair Carmichael: That is absolutely the case. Scotland has a tremendous opportunity to contribute to the growth of renewable energy as part of the United Kingdom, but that will take subsidies that come from consumers’ bills, the cost of which is spread across the whole nation, not simply the households of an independent Scotland. It would be madness for the renewable energy industry to support Scottish independence.

Minimum Wage

Ian Davidson: How many cases of non-payment of the minimum wage have been detected in Scotland since 2010; how many such cases have been prosecuted; and how many employers have been named and shamed for non-payment.

David Mundell: While there have been no prosecutions or naming and shaming of businesses for non-payment of the minimum wage in Scotland since at least 2007, a revised scheme came into effect on 1 October 2013 making it simpler to name and shame such employers. I urge anyone with information about such an employer to use that scheme.

Ian Davidson: I note that the Minister did not tell us how many instances of non-payment had been detected. At a time of economic difficulty, it is a scandal that people are being exploited by being paid less than the
	national minimum wage. The policing of the Act ought to be much strengthened, then there ought to be vigorous prosecutions and harsh punishments, and there certainly ought to be naming and shaming. Will the Government agree to co-operate with any investigation that the Scottish Affairs Committee—with its full complement of members, I hope—conducts into this matter?

David Mundell: I recognise that the Committee has done much valuable work in this area, and of course we will continue to work with it. In Scotland, prosecutions are a matter for the Lord Advocate, but I am sure he will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s contribution this morning.

Philip Hollobone: What representations has the Scottish Office made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about increasing the national minimum wage to £7 an hour, and what effect does the Minister think such an increase would have on living standards in Scotland?

David Mundell: I agree with the Chancellor when he said:
	“I believe Britain can afford an above-inflation increase in the minimum wage so we restore its real value for people and we make sure we have a recovery for all and that work always pays.”

Job Market

Mel Stride: What assessment his Department has made of recent developments in the job market in Scotland.

Alistair Carmichael: It is very encouraging news that employment has increased to near-record highs of more than 2.5 million and that unemployment has fallen to 6.4%, which is the lowest rate in more than four and a half years. Those figures reflect how well Scotland is doing as part of the UK and demonstrate that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working.

Mel Stride: I thank my right hon. Friend for that positive response, which shows how well Scotland is doing as part of the Union. Does he agree that the biggest threat to Scottish jobs is the fantasy-land promise of the SNP and its attempt to remove Scotland from the Union and the UK labour market?

Alistair Carmichael: That is indeed the case. When we talk about business people having concerns, we are talking about a threat not just to business, but to jobs. The UK is now the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and unemployment in Scotland is at 6.4%, which is significantly lower than the average across the UK, which is 7.1%. We have achieved that because we are part of the UK, not despite it. It is a result of Scotland, with her own Parliament, being represented here and having the best of both worlds.

Sheila Gilmore: Unfortunately, unemployment levels in my constituency appear to have stagnated. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Government need to do more even for people living in Scotland’s capital city still without jobs?

Alistair Carmichael: There remains a great deal to do. I suspect I share many of the hon. Lady’s concerns about the continuing high level of youth unemployment and the number of people who have been unemployed for a longer period. I see encouraging signs of progress in these areas, but they are by no means to be taken for granted. There are tremendous opportunities for the two Governments in Scotland, along with councils in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and elsewhere, to work together to get the best possible arrangements for the unemployed.

Charles Kennedy: When the Secretary of State visits the highlands and addresses a Burns supper in Inverness on Friday night, I am sure he will hear a lot from those present about one of the most exciting job prospects for the highlands and for Scotland as a whole, which is the potential of the Kishorn site in my constituency for offshore wind development. May I encourage him and his colleagues to continue to work with Edinburgh to promote the interests of this exciting project? I wanted to get my plug in now because, due to a previous long-standing engagement, I will not be there on Friday night myself.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall, in fact, be carrying out other engagements, although I understand that tickets for that Burns supper are still available and are very reasonably priced. In relation to Kishorn, my right hon. Friend raises an important local concern for his constituents, as he has a long and proud record of doing. I certainly look forward to hearing the detail about that. We are seeing such developments growing across the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland, and it is because our plan has worked.

Gemma Doyle: The Secretary of State may think that everything is rosy, but is it not a fact that we are seeing the most sustained fall in real wages since records began 50 years ago? Is it not also a fact that the jobs market is not working for ordinary Scots and that both Governments are failing the people we represent?

Alistair Carmichael: I wish the hon. Lady and her colleagues could find it within themselves to recognise the substantial progress we are making with the improving employment situation in Scotland. There is significant progress, which makes a real difference for her constituents and mine. Wage levels will doubtless need some improvement to catch up; that is an inevitable consequence of the steps we had to take to clear up the mess that she made.

“Scotland’s Future”

Lindsay Roy: What assessment he has made of the Scottish Government’s White Paper entitled “Scotland’s Future”; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Carmichael: The Scottish Government’s White Paper shows that the case for independence is unravelling. They promised answers, but failed to address key referendum issues such as currency, costings and EU membership.

Lindsay Roy: I thank the Secretary of State for his candid answer. Can he explain why there would be issues with the funding of pensions if Scotland were to become a separate state?

Alistair Carmichael: In that regard, the most pertinent intervention came from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland—not a political party or a body that has an axe to grind, but people who know what they are talking about. They told us what we already know: there are substantial questions on pensions and other areas, and the Scottish Government have still failed to answer them.

Robert Smith: Surely one of the great weaknesses of the White Paper is on the future of the pound in Scotland. Surely the simplest way in which the people of Scotland can guarantee to keep the pound is to vote no in the referendum.

Alistair Carmichael: That is indeed the case and I am confident that they will do so, because the people of Scotland value having the pound sterling as their currency. They value having the Bank of England as a lender of last resort and they value the fact that, as a result, risks and opportunities are spread across the whole United Kingdom.

Angus MacNeil: The White Paper has caused ripples. The polls are tightening and the Tories, with their Labour friends, are worried, but still the Prime Minister is afraid to debate with Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland. This week the Financial Times tells us that an independent Scotland could expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the UK. Our GDP per head is higher than France’s and Italy’s. Will the Secretary of State use his position to ensure that people know these facts and stay away from scares and fears designed to stop them making the best decision for Scotland?

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed I will, because these are all things that we have achieved as part of the United Kingdom. It all demonstrates what is possible for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. As for any question of debate, we have dealt with that already, but is it not remarkable that when Scottish National party Members could be answering questions, all they want to do is have a debate about the debate?

Pension Funding

Gregg McClymont: What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government on the funding of pensions in Scotland after 2014.

Alistair Carmichael: Despite having published a paper specifically about pensions in September and the much vaunted White Paper in November, the Scottish Government have left many questions about pensions unanswered.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the UK and Scottish Governments have agreed that there will be no negotiation on any issues, including pensions, before the independence referendum in September.

Gregg McClymont: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland published its first report on pensions in an independent Scotland before the publication of the White Paper, and we were told by the Scottish National party that the answers to our questions about pensions would be in the White Paper. This week the institute issued its response: the White Paper does not contain the answers that would give Scots certainty about their pensions. Is the Secretary of State aware of any intention on the part of the Scottish National party to answer the crucial questions about Scots’ pensions?

Alistair Carmichael: I am pretty certain that any answers that would come from the nationalists would not find favour with the people of Scotland, so I am also pretty certain that we will not be hearing much by way of answers in the future. The people will have heard what the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland had to say, and they will now want to hear from the Scottish Government what their answer is, but I am not expecting to hear much.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Richard Ottaway: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 February.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Richard Ottaway: London is a 24/7 global city, and the commercial centre of the western world. Given that the economy is growing and unemployment is falling, does the Prime Minister agree that the efforts of the RMT to bring London to a halt by means of a tube strike is nothing short of economic vandalism?

David Cameron: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. There is absolutely no justification for a strike. We need a modernised tube line working for the millions of Londoners who use it every day. The fact is that only 3% of transactions now involve ticket offices, so it makes sense to have fewer people in those offices, but more people on the platforms and in the stations.
	I unreservedly condemn this strike. When the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), was asked to do so today, he said that it was a matter for the union, so I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will stand up and condemn it unreservedly now.

Edward Miliband: The ongoing floods and storms have caused families to be driven out of their homes, and are affecting significant parts of the country. As the Prime Minister knows, many of those who have been affected feel that the Government’s response has been slow, and that more could have been done sooner. Will he tell the House what action is now being taken to ensure that the affected areas are given all the support that they need?

David Cameron: Let me update the House on this very serious situation. I do not accept that the Government have been slow—we have been having Cobra meetings on a daily basis, and we have taken action right across the board—but let me give the latest figures.
	Currently, 328 properties are flooded, 122,000 were protected last night because of the flood prevention measures that are in place, and 1.2 million have been protected since December. There are still seven severe flood warnings in place across the coast of Cornwall, Devon and Dorset. There are 69 flood warnings in place, which means that more flooding is expected, and that immediate action is required. The Environment Agency also has 219 flood alerts in place. There has been a serious situation in Dorset, with many people losing their electricity. More than 60,000 homes have been reconnected overnight, but, as of this morning, there are still 8,000 homes without power.
	Whatever is required—whether it is dredging on the Rivers Tone and Parrett, support for our emergency services, fresh money for flood defences, or action across the board—the Government will help those families, and will get this issue sorted.

Edward Miliband: Notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s response, he will know that many people in the affected areas do feel that the response has been too slow, and do feel that they have been left on their own and isolated. Does he agree that the events that we have seen demand a comprehensive look at the Government’s investment in flood protection, and the speed of their response?
	The Prime Minister promised that the Government would report to the House on these issues by the end of January. Can he tell us when that report will be available?

David Cameron: The Secretary of State for the Environment has given repeated statements in this House, but I can tell the House that he will make a comprehensive statement tomorrow.
	Let me answer very directly the issue about flooding. This Government have spent £2.4 billion over this four-year period, which is more than the £2.2 billion spent under the previous Government, but let me announce today that a further £100 million will be made available to fund essential flood repairs and maintenance over the next year. This will cover £75 million for repairs, £10 million for urgent work in Somerset to deliver the action plan being prepared by the local agencies and £15 million for extra maintenance. I make the point that we are only able to make these decisions because we have looked after the nation’s finances carefully. I can confirm that that is new money that will protect more houses and help our country more with floods, and we will continue to do what is right.

Edward Miliband: I have to say to the Prime Minister that the figures actually show that investment by the Government has fallen not risen over the period, but the reality is that the scale of the challenge we face from climate change and floods demands that we have that comprehensive look at the investment that is required. I am glad that the Prime Minister has said the Environment Secretary will come to the House tomorrow.
	I want to turn to another subject. The Prime Minister said that in 2014 he was going to lead the way on women’s equality. Can he tell us how that is going in the Conservative party?

David Cameron: First, let me go back to the very important issue of flooding—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. People are getting very excited on both sides of the House. The question has been posed; the answer must be heard.

David Cameron: I am glad that, with Falkirk going on, the right hon. Gentleman is asking me about constituency selection, but let me briefly return to the issue of floods, because I want to clarify this point about the funding. In the period 2010 to 2014, when this Government were in office, the funding was £2.4 billion—more than when Labour was in office. Secondly, let me say—this will be of interest to a number of constituency MPs—that when it comes to funding, the Bellwin scheme also matters because it is the way in which the Government support local authorities. So let me tell the House—[Interruption.] Let me tell the House—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Ruane, you are an incorrigible delinquent at times. Behave yourself man.

David Cameron: I know that many hon. Members with flooded homes in their constituencies will want to hear about the Bellwin scheme, because it is the way in which central Government help local government, so let me say we will be paying local authorities 100% of eligible costs above the Bellwin grant threshold, we will be extending the eligible—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. However long this session takes, the questions will be heard and the answers will be heard. That is what—[Interruption.] Order. That is what the public have a right to expect of this House.

David Cameron: Labour Members claim to be concerned, but then will not listen to the answers. We are extending the eligible spending period for Bellwin claims until the end of March 2014, recognising that the bad weather is continuing, and I can say to colleagues in Cornwall that we will make sure they do not suffer from having a unitary authority, which I know they believe is very important.
	On the important issue of getting more women into public life—[Interruption.] Yes, this is fantastically important for our country, because we will not represent or govern our country properly unless we have more women at every level in our public life and in our politics. I am proud of the fact that while I have been leader of the party the number of women Conservative MPs has gone from 17 to 48, but we need to do much more. I want this to go further. We have also seen more women in work than ever before, a tax cut for 11 million women, we have stopped pensions discriminating against women and we are putting women at the front of our international aid programmes. Those are the actions we are taking. There is more to do, but we have a good record of helping women in our economy.

Edward Miliband: I have to say—[Interruption.] I do have to say a picture tells a thousand words. This is a Prime Minister who says—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for having to interrupt again. Members, calm yourselves: it is only just after midday, many hours of the day remain, do not destroy your systems by exploding.

Edward Miliband: A picture tells a thousand words. Look at the all-male Front Bench ranged before us. The Prime Minister says that he wants to represent the whole country. I guess they did not let women into the Bullingdon club either, so there we go. He said that a third of his Ministers would be women; he is nowhere near meeting that target. Half the women he appointed as Ministers after the election have resigned or been sacked. And in his Cabinet—get this, Mr Speaker—there are as many men who went to Eton or Westminster as there are women. That is the picture. Does he think it is his fault that the Conservative party has a problem with women?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is interested in the figures; let me give him the figures. Of the full members of the Cabinet who are Conservatives, 24%—a quarter of them—are women. That is not enough; I want to see that grow. Of the Front-Bench Conservative Ministers, around 20% are women. That is below the 33% that I want to achieve. We are making progress, and we will make more progress. Let me make this point: this party is proud of the fact that we had a woman Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Gove, you really are a very over-excitable individual. You need to write out 1,000 times “I will behave myself at Prime Minister’s questions”.

David Cameron: To be fair to the Labour party, it has had some interim leaders who have been women, but it has a habit of replacing them with totally ineffective men.

Edward Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Lady Thatcher. Unlike him, she was a Tory leader who won general elections. I notice that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is in his place. He wrote an interesting article recently, in which he said:
	“We men are all guilty of such unconscious slights to women”.
	The Prime Minister recently greeted a leading high-profile businesswoman at a reception by asking, “Where’s your husband?” That says it all. The reason that representation matters is that is shapes the policies that a Government introduce and how they impact on women in this country. He is failing women. Can he say why, for the first time in five years, the gap between men’s and women’s pay has increased?

David Cameron: The fact is that there are more women in work in our country than ever before in our history. We have seen a tax cut for 12 million women, a pension increase that is benefiting women, tax-free child care that will help women who want to go out to work and more support on child care. The right hon. Gentleman talks about MPs and candidates; he might enjoy this
	one. The Labour candidate for Wythenshawe has made an endorsement today. He has endorsed Miliband—David Miliband.

Edward Miliband: If I were the right hon. Gentleman, I would not be talking about candidates, this week of all weeks. What is the Tory party doing? It is removing one of its most senior women and seeking to replace her with an Old Etonian. That says it all about the Conservative party. He did not answer my question, so I will tell him why the gender pay gap is increasing. It is because the minimum wage has been losing value, there is a growth in zero-hours contracts and women have a problem accessing child care. He promised to modernise his party, but he is going backwards. He runs his Government like the old boys’ network. That is why he is failing women across his party and across the country.

David Cameron: Is it not interesting that with six questions and an invitation to condemn the strike today, we heard not a word from the right hon. Gentleman? Is this not the truth: he raises constituency selections in a week when he has completely rolled over to the trade unions? Let us be clear about what is happening: they keep their block vote, they get more power over their discretionary funding and they get 90% of the votes for Labour’s leader. He told us that he was going to get rid of the red flag—all he has done is run up the white flag.

Henry Bellingham: With 40 firms in west Norfolk, led by Bespak and Gilchrist Confectionery, expanding, which has led to unemployment falling by 20% since March last year, is the Prime Minister aware that another 440 hard-working families have been receiving a pay packet and facing a brighter future under our long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: two weeks ago, we saw the biggest increase in employment in one set of quarterly figures since records began in the 1970s; we are seeing unemployment come down and more people in work; most of those new jobs—the overwhelming majority—are full-time jobs; and nine out of 10 of those jobs over the past year have been in better-paid professions, rather than low-paid jobs. So we are seeing economic success, and every one of those jobs is not just a statistic; it is someone with a pay packet who can help take care of their family, and have the dignity and security that work brings. Is it not surprising that we heard not a word about the economy today from Labour Members? As they know, that is because it is growing and all their forecasts were wrong.

Elfyn Llwyd: In evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the leader of the Welsh Conservative Assembly group said that the lockstep on income tax in the draft Wales Bill was not
	“a sensible course of action”.
	Subsequently that day, the Secretary of State for Wales said that the Assembly group leader was expressing
	“very much a personal view of his own.”
	Later, the Secretary of State received a letter from the Welsh Conservative Assembly group saying that it was very much its opinion. Who speaks for Wales? Is it the Secretary of State for Wales or the leader of that Assembly group?

David Cameron: The Secretary of State is doing a superb job standing up for Wales. Only yesterday, he and I were discussing how we are going to make sure that the NATO conference coming to Wales will be a success for the whole of the Welsh economy. On the future of devolution, we are in favour of taking these further steps, and we will be bringing forward legislation. We will be taking steps and making sure that people in Wales have a real say. I want the Conservatives in Wales to stand up as the low-tax party in Wales, and under our devolution plan that is exactly what they will do.

Chris Heaton-Harris: A couple of weeks ago, the Daventry university technical college opened the doors to its new campus, where, under the stewardship of its excellent principal, David Edmondson, its first 96 students will be learning the vocational skills that young people need to compete in the future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that university technical colleges such as Daventry’s will ensure that young people across our country have a brighter and more secure future, and are able to reap the benefits of our long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; making sure we have the best skills and the best schools is an absolutely key part of our long-term economic plan, and I support very much the university technical college movement. The number of pupils taught in underperforming schools under this Government has fallen by 250,000 in four years. Again, that is not just a statistic; it is tens of thousands of young people who are going to have the chance of a good education, a good future, and the chance to get a job and get involved in our modern economy. UTCs are well placed to help thousands of students in that way.

Fiona Mactaggart: When, on 22 February 2012, I asked the Prime Minister about fraud at A4e, a company working with jobseekers, he told me that he was waiting for the truth before he would act. This week’s guilty pleas by A4e staff reveal a culture of fraud in that company. Is not the list of taxpayer-funded fraudsters—Serco, G4S, A4e—getting too long? When is it going to stop?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The answer I would give is that instead of bandying around names of companies, where many people in them will be working hard to do a good job, what we should do is investigate wrongdoing properly and make sure that cases are properly taken to court, as this case clearly was.

Graham Stuart: Does the Prime Minister share my outrage at the false choice presented by the chairman of the Environment Agency between protecting urban areas and protecting rural areas from flood? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that my constituents in Holderness, and people in the Somerset levels and elsewhere, expect decent maintenance and dredging, and not abandonment?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there should not be a false choice between protecting the town or protecting people who live in the countryside.
	What we are now seeing, quite rightly, is a shift in the debate. From the late 1990s, for far too long, the Environment Agency believed that it was wrong to dredge. Those of us with rural constituencies that have been affected by flooding have seen the effectiveness of some dredging that has taken place. If it is good for some places, we need to make the argument that it would be good for many more places. I have said that we will see dredging on the Tone and the Parrett in the Somerset levels, because that will make a difference, but it is time for Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Departments to sit around a table and work out a new approach that will ensure that something that worked for decades and centuries is reintroduced again.

Jack Dromey: Queen Victoria was on the throne when the Dunlop factory in Erdington first produced world-class tyres for the motorsport industry. Jaguar Land Rover now needs the land for the welcome expansion of the Jaguar plant. The Business Secretary and Birmingham city council have identified three sites and a financial package so that Goodyear Dunlop can relocate. Will the Prime Minister join the Business Secretary and me in urging it to look at those alternatives and not walk away from 125 years of manufacturing history?

David Cameron: I was being briefed on that issue just before coming to the Chamber. I am happy to look carefully at it and see what can be done. The recovery of the automotive sector, particularly in the west midlands, has been hugely welcome for our country. Dunlop is an historic name and an historic brand, and I will do everything that I can to work with the Business Secretary and the hon. Gentleman to get a good outcome.

Stephen Metcalfe: South Essex is proof that our long-term economic plan is working. However, the current options under consideration for an additional Lower Thames Crossing are limited in their ambition and do not maximise the economic potential of the Thames Gateway. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and other interested colleagues so that he can hear why option A and certainly option C are not the right answers?

David Cameron: Where Essex goes so often the rest of the country follows, as my hon. Friend says. This is an important issue. We must consider all the potential bottlenecks that can hold back our economy. I am happy to meet him and colleagues. The Thames Gateway is an absolutely vital development for our country, and I want to see economic development spread throughout our country, so I am happy to hold that meeting.

Gemma Doyle: Royal Mail shares are currently trading at 587 pence, almost 80% higher than when the Government sold off their share. Does the Prime Minister still honestly believe that his Government properly valued Royal Mail and that the price was set to secure the best deal for the taxpayer?

David Cameron: The Government did a good job to get private sector capital into Royal Mail. Frankly, that is something that has evaded Governments of all
	colours and all persuasions for decades. I well remember sitting on the Opposition Benches and hearing about the appalling losses in Royal Mail—tens and hundreds of millions of pounds. The fact that it is now well managed, well run and, with private sector capital in, it is a great development for our country.

Jessica Lee: In Erewash, we have a proud and strong history of supporting apprenticeships across a range of sectors. With national apprenticeship week taking place next month, does my right hon. Friend agree that the emphasis and drive of this Government on increasing apprenticeships—for men and women—is exactly what is needed to support people getting back into work and training?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have invested record amounts in apprenticeships. More than 1.5 million people have started apprenticeships, many of whom come from the east midlands, including those whom I met with her in her constituency. Again, those are not just statistics. Each and every one of those apprentices is someone who is getting a chance, a skill, a job and an opportunity to build a life for themselves and to build that stability, peace of mind and security that should be the birthright of every single person in our country.

Ben Bradshaw: The loss of the railway line at Dawlish in the overnight storms is a devastating blow to the economies of Devon and Cornwall. It comes just a year after we lost our railway service for a whole month because of flooding. Does the Prime Minister accept that we, as a country, will have to spend a great deal more investing in the resilience of our transport infrastructure and that we need a Government who are united in their acceptance of, and their determination to do something about, climate change?

David Cameron: I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman on a number of points. First, we need to ensure that urgent action is taken to restore the transport links and that is why I will chair Cobra this afternoon, bringing together the problems of the power reductions, the floods and the effect on transport. Secondly, we must ensure that we go on investing in rail schemes and this Government are putting record amounts into such rail schemes. The third point, on which I totally agree with him, is that we need to continue the analysis of the resilience of our infrastructure that is now carried out by the Cabinet Office. Where extra investment and protections are needed, they must be put in place.

Henry Smith: The Prime Minister recently visited Vent-Axia in my constituency, a company that has brought manufacturing jobs back to this country from China. What are the Government doing to encourage more reshoring of jobs to the UK as part of our long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: It was a huge pleasure to go to Crawley with my hon. Friend and see that company, which makes ventilation equipment, bringing jobs from China back to the UK. That is a small trend at the moment, as 1,500 jobs in manufacturing have been reshored since 2011. If we manage to ensure that our energy market is competitive, if we keep our labour
	markets flexible and competitive and if we make this a friendly country for business with low tax rates, including low corporate tax rates, there is no reason why we should not see more companies coming back to Britain. We will not get that with an anti-enterprise, anti-business, anti-growth Labour party.

Rosie Cooper: Last week, the Care Quality Commission issued an appalling and damning report on Liverpool community health. Will the Prime Minister undertake to have the historic HR practices, the disciplinary actions and the subsequent pay-offs that were used as a mechanism to bully staff forensically examined and to ensure that the executive team and the board are held to account, making the huge statement that bullying is not acceptable in the NHS?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise both the specific case and the general lessons it brings. Of course, we still have more to do, but I think the CQC is a hugely improved organisation. We now have a chief inspector of hospitals. It is all much more transparent than it was in the past, but I am very happy to look at the hon. Lady’s specific concerns about bullying and to ensure that the CQC deals with that. This week is the anniversary of the dreadful report into Stafford hospital and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is absolutely committed to ensuring that there is a change of culture in the NHS so that we do not put up with poor practice, so that when there are problems we are not afraid or ashamed to surface them, and so that we do not just talk about those problems but deal with them.

Mel Stride: In my constituency, business confidence is growing and unemployment has fallen by more than a quarter in the past 12 months. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that we should take no lectures from the shadow Chancellor, particularly given the green budget report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said:
	“The largest challenge for the Chancellor remains having to contend with the consequences of the Great Recession”—
	a recession caused by the Labour party?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point and the IFS report, out this morning, states that the change in economic outlook from a year ago is “really quite remarkable”, and:
	“The UK recovery is getting ever closer to achieving ‘escape velocity’”.
	[Interruption.] We keep being told by the shadow Chancellor that it is about time, but if we had listened to him, there would have been more borrowing, more spending, more taxing and more debt. His view is very clear: if we gave him back the keys to the car, he would drive it just as fast into the same wall and wreck the economy all over again.

John Spellar: Will the Prime Minister make clear whether he will still, quite wrongly, try to end the ban on fox hunting?

David Cameron: My view remains that which was in the manifesto on which I stood—that is, that the House of Commons should have the opportunity for a debate and a vote on the issue.

Menzies Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend share the anxiety of many of us that the programme for the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria has fallen so badly behind?

David Cameron: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that after a very promising start, with chemicals not only being discovered and removed but destroyed, there seem to be indications that the programme is now slowing and that not all the necessary information is forthcoming. I discussed the issue in a telephone call with President Putin some 48 hours ago. Britain will continue to put pressure on all parties to ensure that chemical weapons are produced and destroyed.

Meg Hillier: Overseas students who are offered places at top British universities get extra coaching in English and maths, but hard-working Hackney students from poor backgrounds with top A-level predictions are not even offered a place if they have a grade C in maths. That is not fair and does not help social mobility. What is the Prime Minister going to do to support hard-working Hackney students?

David Cameron: First, we must continue with what has been happening in Hackney, which is the introduction of new academy schools, such as the Mossbourne academy, which is one of the most impressive schools I have ever visited anywhere in the world. We must also continue with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s plan to uncap student numbers at our universities so that anyone who can get the grades is able to have a place there. On the hon. Lady’s specific point about GCSE grades, we have to be clear that, in the end, it is universities that set the criteria, rather than the Government, but I am very happy to look at the specific issue. I also believe that, as the Education Secretary has said, if people do not get the right grades at GCSE, particularly in English and maths, we ought to encourage retakes and more work. The reason for that is that there is not a job in the world that does not require good English and maths. That is a very important message to go out.

Anne-Marie Morris: No doubt the Prime Minister saw the scenes of destruction resulting from storm damage in Dawlish in my constituency. Our railway line is out of action, 25 families have been evacuated and one house is about to fall into the sea. Devon and Cornwall feel cut off. Can he confirm that he is taking all the action possible to get transport systems back in action and families back into their homes and, crucially, that he will look at fast-tracking a review of the funding for a breakwater to protect the railway line and residents, which currently cannot be implemented until 2019 because of lack of funding?

David Cameron: I am very happy to look at all the suggestions my hon. Friend makes. That is why we are holding the meeting of Cobra this afternoon. Members right across the House will know that that railway line is not only a vital artery for the south-west, but one of the most scenic and beautiful lines anywhere in our country, so what has happened is hugely upsetting and disturbing. We will look at all the options, and we will do so with great urgency.

Pat Glass: The Prime Minister will be aware of the investigation into the systematic beating, abuse and rape of young men and boys at the former Medomsley detention centre in my constituency. The victim toll has now topped 300. It is the biggest investigation ever undertaken by Durham constabulary, which is a relatively small police force. Will he give a commitment that, if it proves necessary, his Home Secretary will meet the police and crime commissioner, the chief constable and myself to ensure that that highly successful team have the resources they need to see the investigation to its conclusion? The victims deserve no less.

David Cameron: I am very happy to give the hon. Lady that assurance. I do not support the police merger ideas of the past and think that some of our smaller police forces are hugely capable, but when they are doing such large and complex investigations, they occasionally need help and support, so we should ensure that it is available. I am very pleased with the work the National Crime Agency is doing. It is now fully established, up and running and able to deal with some of the more serious crimes—people smuggling, sexual abuse and the like—and I think that we will hear more from it about the great work it is doing.

William Cash: While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the European Union (Referendum) Bill, and the whole House of Commons on passing it, will he tell us whether the dead parrot is merely resting? Does he have a Baldrick-like plan to use the Parliament Act so that we can get it squawking again?

David Cameron: I hope that particular parrot, which obviously has beautiful plumage, can be resuscitated if one of my colleagues is fortunate enough to win the private Member’s Bill ballot. We on this side of the House know that the British public deserve a say, and I am sure that one of my colleagues would be delighted to bring the Bill back in front of the House. Let us be clear—because the Opposition have all gone a bit quiet over there—about why the Bill was killed in the House of Lords: the Labour party and, I am afraid to say, the Liberal Democrats do not want to give the British people a say. This House should feel affronted, frankly, because we supported and voted for the Bill, so I hope that it will come together as one and insist on the Bill.

Jim McGovern: In the Chancellor’s Budget of 2105, he made a very welcome announcement about tax breaks for the computer games industry. That was passed on to the European Commission last April, but since then we have heard nothing. The games body, TIGA, is saying that this is having a very detrimental effect on the industry. Will the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Chancellor do something to address this delay?

David Cameron: I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. I think it is perfectly within a Government’s rights to set out a way of helping and supporting vital industries such as this which are so important for the future of our country. We are discussing it with the European Commission and we are hopeful of good news to come shortly.

Andrew George: Following the questions from the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), it is absolutely true that following the most recent storms, residents in Cornwall have been concerned that England will be completely cut off. In view of that, while MPs from Cornwall and the south-west have been content to support the billions of pounds necessary for HS2 and other transport projects to the north, does the Prime Minister accept that relatively small amounts are now needed to ensure the resilience of the rail line between Penzance and Paddington?

David Cameron: I know from personal experience how vital the Penzance to Paddington link is and how many people rely on it, so I am happy to look at this very urgently. Let me repeat something I was trying to say at the beginning of questions about the Bellwin scheme. I know that Cornish Members of Parliament are concerned that now they have a unitary authority, they would need a very big claim before triggering Bellwin. We are sorting that out so that the money and the assistance will be there. On the transport links, it is an urgent requirement to get this right.

Point of Order

Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I will take the hon. Lady’s point of order, but her voice deserves to be fully heard, so I shall pause for a moment.

Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a genuine request for information. On Monday, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions appeared in front of our Select Committee. Our questioning was, in the main, about the slowness of the roll-out of universal credit and what seems to be gross misspending of public money. In response to my highly respected colleague, the Chair of our Select Committee, the Secretary of State replied, in the first instance:
	“With respect, I do not have to tell the Committee everything that is happening in the Department”.
	Later, he said:
	“With respect, Chairman, I do not think this Committee can run the Department.”
	Both replies—no surprises there, Mr Speaker—were, in my opinion, as ill-mannered as they were ill-informed, because it is my understanding that the duty laid on a Select Committee by the House of Commons is to scrutinise the working of the relevant Department. I would therefore be grateful for your advice on to whom I should go or whether there is a relevant committee to whose attention I should draw my concerns, to clarify the situation and, I hope, impose on the Secretary of State the reality of his responsibilities.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for that point of order. I accept that it is very much a request for information or clarification. I would make two points in response. First, her understanding of the function of a Select Committee is precisely correct—it is to scrutinise the work of the Department; not to run the Department but to hold to account those who do. That is certainly true. Secondly, however, I must say to the hon. Lady that the matter currently rests with the Committee, and it would not fall to me to say, still less to do, anything further beyond what I am saying to her now, unless the Committee were to report to the House a stated dissatisfaction. For now, however, she has lodged her point very clearly on the record, and I thank her for doing so.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Secretary Grayling, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary Eric Pickles, the Attorney-General and Simon Hughes, presented a Bill to make provision about how offenders are dealt with before and after conviction; to amend the offence of possession of extreme pornographic images; to make provision about the proceedings and powers of courts and tribunals; to make provision about judicial review; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 169) with explanatory notes (Bill 169-EN).

Investment Management (Fiduciary Duties)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Phil Wilson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a fiduciary duty on those involved in managing an investment to act in the best interest of investors, including pension savers, in a transparent and accountable way; and for connected purposes.
	I want to start with a simple observation: successful economies cannot exist if suppliers take advantage of their customers and do not act in their best interest. Competition helps to ensure that suppliers do the right thing, but when a service or product is complex, and when the customer cannot know whether he or she is receiving a good service or buying the right product, the onus has to be on the supplier to act in good faith. It comes down to trust. We trust that the service we require will be delivered to the best of the ability of the person or company providing it. We also trust that the product we purchase works and can do the job. If not, we demand some kind of redress and do not expect to pick up the repair bill. Those who act in a professional manner will guard against bad practice.
	One place where trust and professionalism are vital is in the financial and investment services industry, but here is the problem: the agent of the agent of the saver can lose sight of the ultimate customer’s best interest. Nowhere is that clearer than in the investments of our pension industry, which is worth more than £2 trillion, or 135% of the size of the UK economy. With those statistics in mind, and with auto-enrolment bringing an additional 11 million savers into the system—many of them low-paid—the industry has a great responsibility to get it right.
	Today, millions of pension savers from all over the world own shares in global companies. For the most part, these people are not wealthy investors; they work in shops and factories, small businesses and local government. Are all these companies run on their behalf to make a decent profit to pay a pension, and in a socially responsible way? Does our investment industry encourage them, on our behalf, to do so and bring them to book when they do not? Does the investment industry encourage the long-term profitable investment that its pensioner clients need? In most cases the answer is yes, but in some cases the system fails.
	I believe that those whose task it is to look after the money of millions of pension savers should be under a fiduciary duty. We insist on it for pension trustees, but that obligation should not be lost if the management of the fund is delegated to someone else.
	Over the decades, the Labour movement has championed workers rights. Now we must champion the rights of working people as capital holders and investors in the stock market. They are the new capitalists and they are our people, too. We must call on those who manage our funds to do so by putting our interests ahead of their own. At the core of every decision they take should be the savers’ interests, because it is our money, not theirs, for which they have responsibility. That is the essence of fiduciary duty. Financial institutions need to reflect such duties in the way in which they practise their craft.
	That is why fiduciary duties, transparency and accountability are important, and that is why I wish to bring in this Bill.
	For pensioners, sustainable financial performance is what counts. This Bill is intended to emphasise the importance of the long-term result, which is the one that counts for millions of hard-working pension savers in our economy. I agree with ShareAction that, just as section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 requires company directors to have regard for the consequences of any decision in the long term, we should require investors in charge of our pension savings to be similarly enlightened. Those investors should also have regard to the impact of decisions on the financial system and the real economy, and take stock of social and environmental considerations as well as the implications of any investment activities on the beneficiary.
	All of this is important because in 2010 only 11.5% of UK shares were owned by individuals. In the 1960s the figure was more than 50%. Today, the major investment decisions that affect companies are taken by asset managers controlling trillions of pounds. That money is our money. We want to know where it is invested and why. This Bill would make it a requirement for pension funds to detail where they invest. Votes taken by asset managers on the remuneration of corporate executives should also be in the public domain. Those votes represent our interest and should not be secret.
	The Bill would also ensure that fees paid to pension managers and other intermediaries should be transparent, including an explanation of how much they are and why they are necessary. The Office of Fair Trading has discovered 18 different charges levied on pension funds, many of which we are not even told about. All of this matters because it is unacceptable for fees to eat up as much as 40% of a pension pot.
	Lord Lawson has raised concerns about such fees. In the Financial Times on 22 January, he said:
	“The costs are massive in this area. Some costs are not revealed at all; some are. Even with the costs that are revealed, there is such a lack of consistency.”
	The article quoted the kind of fees charged, including bid-offer spreads to foreign exchange counterparties, payments to custodian banks and fees to pooled funds. These fees sound opaque because they are opaque. It is a language that is meant to be opaque, and behind which £2 trillion is traded. Are such fees necessary? How much do they cost the saver? Full disclosure of such fees would be a start.
	The job of pension fund managers seems complex and opaque, so we need to be able to trust them. According to the “Concise Oxford English Dictionary”, trust is defined as a
	“firm belief in someone or something. Acceptance of the truth of a statement without evidence or investigation”,
	and to trust someone is defined as to
	“have the confidence to allow someone to have, use or look after.”
	We trust in the industry to look after our savings.
	We trust in others all the time, especially when we require them to do something we ourselves cannot do. If we are ill and require surgery, we put our trust in the surgeon to look after our best interests. The General Medical Council lists among the duties of a doctor: to be
	“honest and open and act with integrity”,
	and never to
	“abuse your patients’ trust in you or the public’s trust in the profession.”
	If we want a solicitor to act on our behalf, the solicitors’ code of conduct states that solicitors must
	“act in the best interests of each client”,
	and
	“behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services.”
	Even the gasman who comes to fix our boiler has a legal requirement to be signed up to the gas safety register, and needs to retrain every five years.
	All those examples are of people in whom we must from time to time place our trust, and they are all governed by legal requirements. They cannot practise if they are not suitably qualified, and they can all be struck off if they are found negligent. If that applies to a doctor, a solicitor and a gas fitter, it should apply to financial agents and fund managers. When it comes to our pension investments, we may place our trust in fund managers for 40 years, not just from time to time, and there is no such transparency and accountability.
	Fund managers have a moral duty to be transparent in their actions and be accountable for them. Savers have a right to know what fees they will be charged and where their savings will be invested. Every practitioner must be able to put their hand on their heart and say that they acted in the best interest of those whose funds they invest. Where market forces encourage them to do otherwise, they must report it.
	Ever more regulation is not the answer. What is needed is a new compact, a new understanding of duty and a rediscovery of fiduciary duties. That is why I believe that, like a doctor who swears under the Hippocratic oath to prevent disease because prevention is better than cure, our fund managers should act responsibly and, like a doctor, swear:
	“I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”
	I am saying not that those in the industry should swear an oath, but that the sentiment of those words should be the foundations on which the industry is built. If there is a breach of that duty, there should be consequences. For example, if there is a mis-selling scandal, a fine
	levied by the authorities on financial institutions might also be levied on the individual perpetrators of the mis-selling. Perhaps, in that knowledge, mis-selling scandals would be less likely to happen.
	We say that we live in a civil society, in which we have accountable Government, informed electors, a free press, an independent judiciary and freedom within the law—a society that attempts to be there for us all. I do not believe that we can achieve a civil society without a civil economy, in which institutional managers of capital are accountable to their savers and push corporations towards sustainability through responsible management. A civil society and a civil economy are two sides of the same coin. We will achieve neither until we realise that simple truth.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Phil Wilson, Nic Dakin, Mr George Howarth, Ian Mearns, Derek Twigg, Sheila Gilmore, Julie Hilling, Mr William Bain, Bridget Phillipson and Debbie Abrahams present the Bill.
	Phil Wilson accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 170).

Robert Flello: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just last April, the Deputy Prime Minister said, on the subject of international human rights, that
	“stepping back simply for commercial expediency would be walking away from our beliefs.”
	Today, he has returned from a commercial delegation to Colombia, which for the 18th year has had a United Nations Commission on Human Rights presence due to continued human rights violations. Has he indicated to you, Mr Speaker, that he intends to make a statement to the House explaining that he is now prepared to walk away from his belief in human rights for commercial expediency?

Mr Speaker: No, I have had no such notification from the Deputy Prime Minister. On the back of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I have a keen expectation that he will be in his place for the next session of questions to the Deputy Prime Minister. If he bobs up and down with his usual determination, he may just be lucky in catching my eye.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[Un-allotted Day]
	 — 
	NHS

Mr Speaker: I advise the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Andy Burnham: I beg to move,
	That this House is concerned about recent pressure in Accident and Emergency departments and the increase in the number of people attending hospital A&Es since 2009-10; notes a recent report by the Care Quality Commission which found that more than half a million people aged 65 and over were admitted as an emergency to hospital with potentially avoidable conditions in the last year; believes that better integration to improve care in the home or community can relieve pressure on A&E; notes comments made by the Chief Executive of NHS England in oral evidence to the Health Select Committee on 5 November 2013, that the NHS is getting bogged down in a morass of competition law, that this is causing significant cost and that to make integration happen there may need to be legislative change; is further concerned that the competition aspects of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 are causing increased costs in the NHS at a time when there is a shortage of A&E doctors; and calls on the Government to reverse its changes to NHS competition policy that are holding back the integration needed to help solve the A&E crisis and diverting resources which should be better spent on improving patient care.
	Our purpose in calling this debate is twofold. First, we want to help the House to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the underlying reasons for the sustained pressure in accident and emergency departments throughout England. Secondly, we want to remove what we see as the major barrier to a lasting solution in A and E.
	What has been happening in A and E over recent years? Between 2007 and 2010, attendances at A and E were fairly stable, although they rose slightly. Over those three years, attendances at hospital A and E departments increased by 16,000. Between 2010 and 2013, something changed. In the first three years of this Government, attendances at A and E increased by a staggering 633,000.
	What is going on? It is all too easy to reach for simplistic answers. In truth, the picture is complex and a range of factors has contributed to the rise. However, it is possible to point to underlying causes. One of those is clearly the general economic climate. People have been living under greater pressure and are struggling with the cost of living. A and E has become the last resort for people who are not able to cope for a range of reasons. If Members speak to A and E staff, they will be told that there has been a rise in people arriving at A and E who have a range of problems linked to their living circumstances, from people who have severe dental pain because they cannot afford to see the dentist, to people who are suffering a breakdown or who are in crisis, to people who cannot afford to keep warm and are suffering a range of cold-related conditions.

Stephen Mosley: The right hon. Gentleman is explaining why there is increased pressure on A and E. Does he not accept that A and E performance has improved since the general election? The average waiting time is down from 77 minutes under the last Government to 30 minutes.

Andy Burnham: No, I do not accept that. This has been the worst year in a decade in A and E departments. Almost 1 million people have waited more than four hours to be seen. In my year as Secretary of State for Health, the figure was 350,000. There has been a big increase in the number of people who are waiting a long time. I was going to come on to the average waiting time, but since he mentions it, let me make the situation clear now. The figure that he is talking about and which appears in the Government amendment relates to the waiting time until an initial assessment, not the total waiting time in A and E. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is nodding because, as ever with him, it is all about the spin. That figure does not mean anything to the public. They want to know how long they will spend waiting in A and E in total. We need to have a bit of truth in this debate.

Kate Green: My right hon. Friend was making a point about the wider economic pressures that are leading to greater pressure within A and E. Was he as shocked as I was to read in the Manchester Evening News last year that people in our area are presenting at A and E as a result of malnutrition? Is it not an appalling indictment of the Government that they have allowed that to happen in the 21st century? It is putting huge pressure on A and E departments across the north-west, including those at Wythenshawe hospital and Manchester Royal infirmary.

Andy Burnham: That is an indictment of the Government. They have made it harder for people to afford a good basic diet. We have seen a rise in hypothermia, rickets and scurvy. Sadly, we have also seen the rise of food banks under this Government. That is why I am beginning my speech by saying that there is a range of reasons for the sustained pressure on A and E.

Margot James: rose—

Yasmin Qureshi: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will make a little progress and then I will give way.
	There have been record levels of hypothermia this year and thousands of over-75s have been treated in hospital for respiratory or circulatory diseases. That brings me to the second underlying cause of the increase in attendances at A and E. The ageing society is not a distant prospect on the horizon. Demographic change is happening now and it is applying increasing pressure on the front line of the NHS.
	We all need to face up to the uncomfortable fact that our hospitals are increasingly full of extremely frail elderly people. Too many older people are in hospital who ought not to have ended up there or who are trapped there because they cannot get the right support to go home. That situation is unacceptable and it has to be addressed.

Margot James: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the emergence of older people visiting A and E in far greater numbers has been coming on for a long time? I know that he does not like to be reminded of the 2004 GP contract, but surely he agrees that it is a factor, because older people have not been able to get the
	necessary support over a long period. The Government are putting that right by integrating health and social care far better.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Lady wants me to answer that question, but I direct her to her right hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Health Committee, who has dismissed the self-serving spin from the Government that says that these problem are all to do with a contract that was signed 10 years ago. I began my speech by citing figures that show an exponential rise in the number of people attending A and E since 2010. Many of those people are very frail older people. That is the issue before the House, so it does not help the debate for the hon. Lady to stand up and make a spurious political point.

Yasmin Qureshi: Is not one of the reasons why more elderly and frail people are going to hospital that there has been a £1.8 billion cut in adult social services and support? Those people are ending up in hospital because they are not receiving the care that they need at home.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to say that the single most important underlying cause of the A and E crisis is the severe cuts that we have seen to adult social care. That has created a situation in which older people are trapped on the ward and cannot go home because there is not adequate support at home. That means that A and E cannot admit to the ward because the beds are full. Hospitals are operating way beyond safe occupancy levels. Because of that, the whole hospital begins to jam up and the pressure backs up through A and E. When A and E cannot admit to the ward it becomes full, so ambulances queue up outside because they cannot hand people over to A and E.
	That is exactly what is happening in our NHS at the moment. A and E is the barometer of the whole health and care system. If there is a problem anywhere in the system, it will be seen eventually as pressure in A and E. That is what is happening. The simplistic spin from the Conservative party, which says that it is all to do with a GP contract from 10 years ago, is discounted by expert after expert.

Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend rightly said that back-ups in A and E cause problems elsewhere. May I draw his attention to the fact that over the past 18 months, more than 1,600 people have waited more than 20 minutes in ambulances outside Warrington hospital before they could even get to A and E and the clock starts ticking? North West Ambulance Service says that it cannot be accurate about the waiting time for hundreds of incidents. Does that show that waiting times may be even worse than first thought?

Andy Burnham: I fear my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know Warrington hospital well and the pressures that have been on it, and I agree that ambulance response times have increased across the country because so many ambulances have been held in queues outside A and E, unable to hand over patients to A and E staff because it is full. That has left large swathes of the country—particularly in rural areas—without adequate ambulance cover, and very serious incidents have taken
	place across the country, not least in the Minister’s area of Norfolk where people have not received ambulances on time. That is the consequence of the pressure on A and E not being addressed, and it is threatening to drag down the rest of the NHS.

Catherine McKinnell: My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech that goes to the very heart of our NHS and the staff who work in it. North East Ambulance Service is one of the highest performing services in the country and reaches 80% of most seriously ill or injured patients within eight minutes. Last week, however, it had to hold an emergency summit because staff morale is at an all-time low. Assaults on staff are increasing dramatically, and the stress and pressure of waiting outside A and E to admit patients is having a deeply damaging impact on the wider NHS. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the NHS was safe in his hands?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend’s point was also made powerfully by ambulance staff at an A and E summit held by the shadow Front-Bench team in Parliament before Christmas when a paramedic spoke of the phenomenon she has just described. He mentioned an occasion when staff were at the door of A and E waiting to hand over a patient to A and E staff, when the patient had a heart attack. The staff did not know what to do and had to go back to the ambulance to try to stabilise the patient. Those sorts of joining points or disconnects in the system are leading to real pressure on staff who do not know what to do in those difficult circumstances. The system is in danger of being overwhelmed, and the pressure on staff must be addressed urgently.

Norman Lamb: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that delays in handover at A and E are not acceptable, and I remember well that last decade, under the previous Government, ambulances were stacking up outside the A and E at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. Does he welcome the fact that this winter, delays of longer than 30 minutes are down by more than 30% compared with last year?

Andy Burnham: Yes, there has always been pressure on the ambulance service at this time of year, but if the Minister wants me to join in with his complacency, I am afraid I will not. The past 12 months have been the worst in A and E in a decade, and there are reports of ambulances across the country held in queues. Is the Minister satisfied with the performance of the ambulance service in his region of east England? Was he satisfied with the way the case I mentioned was handled? I do not believe he was or that his complacency at the Dispatch Box will be appreciated by his constituents.

George Freeman: As a Norfolk MP I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are on the case regarding ambulances, and the Minister is leading the charge. I am interested in the facts. Is not the truth that we are treating 2,000 more patients every day in under four hours in A and E, and that we have 350 more A and E consultants? In Norfolk and Norwich
	hospital, people tell us that it was under Labour, with the IT issues, integration, GP contracts and working time directive that A and E became chaotic. The right hon. Gentleman’s attack is unfair, ill-judged and overly partisan.

Andy Burnham: I acknowledged that there is always pressure in A and E, but the fact is that it performed better in every month when I was Health Secretary than it has under the current Health Secretary. The hon. Gentleman mentions Norfolk again. We have been looking at the Minister’s website, which makes us wonder whether he considers himself a Minister or an observer of events in the NHS. Under the headline “Norman Lamb’s North Norfolk Ambulance Survey” he states:
	“I have been campaigning over the last year to improve unacceptable ambulance response times in rural Norfolk.”
	My God, this is the Minister! He is campaigning against his own Government.

Steve Rotheram: I wonder whether the Minister will write to the Minister about that problem. The spin from those on the Government Front Bench may kid some of their Back Benchers, and it has certainly kidded some Liberal Democrats who I have been speaking to across the Chamber, but it will not kid patients who go to A and E and see people on trolleys, camp beds or blocked in ambulances.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I would love the Government to explain that everything is fine and that there is no problem at all to more than 100,000 people who have waited more than four hours on a trolley this year, or almost 1 million people who have waited more than four hours in A and E. The complacency is not justified, and if those people were to read the Government’s motion, I am afraid, quite frankly, they would be astonished.

Andy Slaughter: Perhaps I may help my right hon. Friend by saying that the campaign in North Norfolk began on the Minister’s website after the excellent campaign run by the Labour prospective parliamentary candidate, Denise Burke, who pointed out how deficient local services were—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I have been watching carefully. Dr Coffey, I fear that you are catching what I can describe only as Gove-itis. You are normally regarded as a rather cerebral soul, and I invite you to try to contain your irascibility for a period, if you can.

Andy Slaughter: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the Government for still classing A and Es as such when, like the one at Charing Cross, they are in practice closing and turning into GP-run clinics? The Government are still calling them A and Es, and people are misled. That will lead them to go to the GP-run centres when they should be going to properly staffed A and Es, and we will get tragedies such as the one at Chase Farm.

Andy Burnham: I am afraid that under the coalition, NHS treatment for “Gove-itis” is being rationed, like everything else, unfortunately. As my hon. Friend said, the Government claim they are keeping A and Es and
	call them “local” A and Es, but they are actually downgrading A and E units all over the country. How can it make sense to close and downgrade A and Es in the midst of an A and E crisis? In west London, as my hon. Friend knows, incredible changes are being introduced without proper regard for the evidence I am presenting to the House today of a change in A and E and of sustained pressure on A and E units. The Government must go back and consider their plans for my hon. Friend’s constituency and the rest of London.

Andrew George: I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the last thing the health service requires is complacency, but synthetic rage does not help either. He must remember that when he was Health Secretary, and indeed a Health Minister, up to seven ambulances were queuing outside Treliske hospital in Cornwall. That problem happens from time to time and it would be better for parties to co-operate and to come together to try to find a solution, rather than simply trying to score political points and ignoring the past.

Andy Burnham: I will put forward a solution that the hon. Gentleman might support. I think he supported the campaign to oppose the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill, and I pay credit to him for that as we worked across party lines on that issue. It is my job to hold the Government to account where there are problems in the national health service, and if the Minister is saying to me that there are no problems in the health service right now, I am afraid I do not agree with him. Emergency services are under intense pressure. If he looks back to our time in government, as he invited me to do, the winter crisis was a regular feature at the turn of the millennium and the early years of the last decade, although it got progressively better and better and we did not see the annual winter crisis. Now it is back with a vengeance, although it is different. The winter/spring crisis has become a summer/autumn crisis too. The pressure is relentless and it needs a proper, lasting solution.

John Glen: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to reflect on the fact that we now have 350 more A and E consultants in the NHS? Given his commitment to cut the NHS at the last election, if he is going to offer a sensible improvement, where will the money come from? How will he pay for it? That is what the people out there want to understand.

Andy Burnham: First, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not continue to misrepresent what I said on the NHS. I have never said, “Cut the NHS”. I stood at the last election on a commitment to protect the NHS budget in real terms. He stood on a manifesto promising real-terms increases for the NHS. I said that if there were to be increases for the NHS, they should be given to social care instead, and that would have relieved some of the pressures on A and E. Let us have the facts straight.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman boasts about having enough A and E doctors. Perhaps he should speak to people from the College of Emergency Medicine and hear what they have to say on that subject. They talk of warning the Government of a recruitment crisis in A and E about two or three years ago. They said that
	they could not get through to Ministers who were obsessed with structural reorganisation. They were left feeling like John the Baptist crying in the wilderness—their words. Perhaps before the hon. Gentleman shouts the odds in the House, he should speak to the people who know about these things and who warned his Government —who failed to act.
	One of the major problems with the pressure on A and E is the number of older people trapped in hospital. This is a product of demographic pressure and the ageing society. Nursing staff talk of how, when they first qualified, it was rare to see someone in their 90s on the ward. Now they are there in great numbers and that makes the task of meeting their needs much more complex. When people reach an advanced age it is simply not possible to separate out their physical, social and mental needs. Need becomes a blur of all three. Our hospitals are not geared up to provide the additional mental and social support that very frail elderly people often need.

Margot James: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Burnham: I have given way to the hon. Lady once: I want to make some progress.
	Some, but not all, of the needs of older people are met in an acute hospital environment, which explains why their condition often drops like a stone. It is a phenomenon that was accurately identified by Robert Francis QC in his report, published a year ago this week. He called for an overhaul of the way in which older people are cared for in acute hospitals. He was right to do so, and while I applaud some of the steps the Secretary of State has taken in that regard, such as the move towards a named consultant, I do not believe it will tackle the root cause of the problem, which is the arrival of far too many older people in hospital in the first place. Only when that is tackled will we begin to address the underlying causes of the A and E crisis.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for giving way, because I am concerned—especially as we are talking about not distorting the facts—by his initial analysis. He attributed part of the pressure on A and E to an outbreak of scurvy and rickets cases. I do not want anybody in my constituency or elsewhere to be unduly alarmed, so can he please put on the record what proportion of people reporting to A and E, including those who are not seen within four hours, are doing so because they have scurvy? He can give the numbers in absolute figures or percentages, but it is important that the House not be misled and that we are given the unvarnished truth.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman should climb off his high horse for a moment. In answer to an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), I pointed to the increase in cases of scurvy, rickets and malnutrition. If he wants—[Interruption.] If he wants to deny that that is the case, that is up to him—[Interruption.] If he speaks to A and E staff, he will hear that people who are
	not eating properly are turning up in ever greater numbers—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I have answered his point and I will now make some progress.
	It is the case that too many older people are arriving at hospital in the first place. A recent Care Quality Commission report found avoidable emergency admissions for pensioners topping 500,000 for the first time—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The exchange between the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and the hon. Member for Taunton Deane is most unseemly. I remind the latter that he is a distinguished former member of Her Majesty’s Government and he should comport himself with appropriate dignity. That is what we look for in an hon. Member who aspires to be a statesman.

Andy Burnham: I suggest—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not dismissing the statesmanlike potential of the hon. Member for Taunton Deane, but I think his journey has some way to go.

Andy Burnham: The beard is certainly helping. I suggest that the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) visit Liverpool Walton, because he will see more food banks there than anywhere else in the country. He will meet families who cannot afford to put enough food on the table to give their kids a decent diet. He will see the direct effects of some of his Government’s policies on some of the most deprived communities in the country.

Steve Rotheram: If people who turn up to A and E have malnutrition, it plays havoc with their medication. If they are not eating properly, they can be violently ill from their medication. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a growing problem?

Andy Burnham: I agree, and the last time we had a debate on this issue I quoted a well-known GP who said that she has taken to asking her patients whether they are eating properly, because many are presenting with unexplained symptoms that she cannot identify. People on several prescription medicines who are not eating properly are putting themselves at risk—

Jeremy Browne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Burnham: I will give way once more, but I hope the hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate and reasonable point.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not dispute that there are people who live on a small amount of money or that some of those who go to see doctors are not eating adequately. But he attributed the pressures on A and E in part—he raised the issue, not me—to an increase in the number of people who are reporting to A and E with scurvy and rickets. He made that point with all the authority of a former Secretary of State, so he should tell the House how much of the extra pressure on A and E is attributable to people who have scurvy or rickets. If he does not know, why did he raise the issue in the first place?

Andy Burnham: I began by saying that the reasons for the rise in A and E attendances were complex. I did not say—if the hon. Gentleman was listening—that there were any simplistic reasons. I did say that there had been a rise in malnutrition and diseases linked to it. If hon. Members on the other side of the House want to dispute that fact, I will have that debate any time they wish. They seek to suggest that malnutrition is not a problem, but they are confirming how out of touch they are.
	As I was saying, the number of emergency admissions of pensioners has topped 500,000 for the first time. It is rising faster than the increase in the ageing population. There were 65,000 more emergency admissions in the last 12 months compared to the previous 12 months, a clear sign of more frail, elderly people ending up in A and E. Hospitals are operating way beyond safe recommended bed occupancy levels, with increasing numbers of frail, elderly people on the wards. That means that A and E finds it increasingly difficult to admit people, and pressure backs up through A and E.
	The Government’s amendment seems to have been written in a parallel universe. Let us get this clear: the last 12 months have been the worst in A and E for a decade. Hospital A and Es have missed the Government’s target in 44 out of the last 52 weeks. How can that equate to A and E performing strongly, as the amendment suggests? It serves only to confirm an impression that has been building about this Secretary of State since he took office: that he seems to spend more time paying attention to spin doctors than he does to real doctors.

Julie Hilling: One problem my food bank has reported to me is that people are reducing the number of drugs they are taking because they cannot afford to buy them. There is a queue in A and E departments to actually register. Not only are people waiting in ambulances outside, but there are queues of people, as happened in a hospital very close to this place, waiting to be registered.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She knows the pressure people are under in our area. What we have heard from the Government is denial that this is the reality in many parts of the country. [Interruption.] We can hear them shouting now, claiming that it is a myth that people are using food banks and not eating properly, and that they cannot afford to heat their homes because of the rise in fuel bills under this Government. All of that is placing extra pressure on A and E, and people are waiting longer and longer to be seen.

Margot James: rose—

Andy Burnham: I give way to the hon. Lady, but this will be the last time.

Margot James: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. As he is widening the debate out to the wider economy, does he not accept that, although there are many reasons for increased A and E consultations and some of the issues relating to nutrition are valid, the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) about people not being able to afford prescriptions must be fallacious?
	They will receive free prescriptions if they have a very low income and are attending food banks. There are many more reasons than the right hon. Gentleman is giving credit for.

Andy Burnham: Not for the first time, Government Members are showing how out of touch they are with what is happening. The hon. Lady says that she is not aware that any family is unable to afford a prescription item. Let me put her straight: that is what many families are facing at the moment, particularly those who are in work, who do not get free prescriptions. They are facing difficult choices about whether they can afford to buy their prescriptions. If she is saying she does not recognise that problem, then I am afraid she really needs to get out of this place a bit more.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I did not intend to intervene, but I should say to the House and to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) that I met recently representatives from community pharmacy associations and others who said to me, explicitly and clearly, that people from what one would assume to be relatively well-off families—middle class and relatively affluent—being prescribed multiple prescriptions are now choosing not to pay for them because of the cost of living and the squeeze on their finances. They are choosing to go without, and that is apparent at pharmacy counters.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. There are families who are choosing between eating, heating or other essentials, such as prescriptions. That is the reality for many families and it is having an impact on their health. For those on the Government Benches not to recognise that that is the reality of life for many people, I fear for the state that we are in. They have been shouting at me for the past few minutes about scurvy. I can tell the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) that the number of admissions has doubled. There are a relatively small number of cases, but they are on the rise. He really should not sit there barracking and dismissing the whole problem. He would do well to look at the facts.
	Today, the Secretary of State says that the NHS got better in the past year. He should say that to the 131,000 people left waiting on trolleys for more than four hours. He should say that to the people finding it harder to get a GP appointment under his Government, left ringing the surgery at 9 am to be told that nothing is available. He should tell that to the families of children who have suffered a mental health crisis, but are told that there are no beds available anywhere in the country and end up being held in police cells. The truth is that the Government have failed to get the A and E crisis under control and it is threatening to drag down the rest of the NHS. In the past 12 months trolley waits are up, waiting times are up, emergency admissions are up, cancelled operations are up and delayed discharges are up, too. That is the reality of what is happening in the NHS.
	One of the main reasons for the intense pressure on A and E is the collapse of social care in England. In December, a report from the Personal Social Services Research Unit found that, due to local government cuts, social care support in the home has been withdrawn from about 500,000 older and vulnerable people. These
	are people who were receiving support in the home, but are no longer getting any help. Even for those people still receiving some support, we continue to hear stories of corners being cut: slapdash 15-minute visits where staff have to choose between helping people wash or helping people eat. If we carry on like this, our hospitals will become more and more full of older people. A and E will be overwhelmed by the pressure and that really is no answer to the ageing society. That brings me to the second part of our debate today: the solution.
	What is clear to most people is that there will not be a solution to the sustained pressure on A and E without better integration of hospital services with social care, primary care and more collaboration between the two. What is also clear is that there is now great frustration among people working in the NHS that they are being prevented from developing solutions to the A and E crisis by a large barrier standing in their way: the Health and Social Care Act 2012. This Government like to talk about integration, but the fact is that they have legislated for fragmentation. Under this Government, market madness has run riot throughout the NHS and is now holding back solutions to the care that older people need.

Guy Opperman: Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome the exact example that he so urgently seeks: Haltwhistle hospital in Northumberland? It is currently being built and I have been around it. It is integrated, with the local authority on the top floor and the NHS on the bottom floor. That is surely the model and the way forward.

Andy Burnham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are examples of good practice out there, but I suggest that he speaks to chief executives of clinical commissioning groups and trusts. They are telling me that the competition regime introduced by his Government is a barrier to that kind of sensible collaboration. The chief executive of a large NHS trust near here says that he tried to create a partnership with GP practices and social care, but was told by his lawyers that he could not because it was anti-competitive. Does the hon. Gentleman support that? Is that what he thought he was legislating for when he voted for the Health and Social Care Act? People are being held back from doing the right thing for fear of breaking this Government’s competition rules.
	Recently, we heard of two CCGs in Blackpool that have been referred to Monitor for failing to send enough patients to a private hospital. The CCG says that there is a good reason for that: patients can be treated better in the community, avoiding costly unnecessary hospital visits. That is not good enough for the new NHS, however, so the CCG has had to hire an administrator to collect thousands of documents, tracking every referral from GPs and spending valuable resources that could have been spent on the front line.

Yasmin Qureshi: My right hon. Friend might be aware that recently the trust in Bournemouth wanted to merge with neighbouring Poole trust, but the competition rules stopped the merger taking place.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right. For the very first time in the history of the NHS, competition intervenes to block sensible collaboration between two hospitals seeking to improve care and make savings. Since when
	have we allowed competition lawyers to call the shots instead of clinicians? The Government said that they were going to put GPs in charge. Instead, they have put the market in charge of these decisions and that is completely unjustifiable. The chief executive of Poole hospital said that it cost it more than £6 million in lawyers and paperwork and that without the merger the trust will now have an £8 million deficit. That is what has happened. That is not just what I say; listen to what the chief executive of NHS England told the Health Committee about the market madness that we now have in the NHS:
	“I think we’ve got a problem, we may need legislative change…What is happening at the moment…we are getting bogged down in a morass of competition law…causing significant cost and frustration for people in the service in making change happen. If that is the case, to make integration happen we will need to change it”—
	that is, the law. That is from the chief executive of NHS England.

Jeremy Hunt: That was Labour’s law.

Andy Burnham: No, it was your law, your Government’s law, the Health and Social Care Act 2012—the same law against which his own care Minister, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), has recently been speaking out. He recently told the King’s Fund:
	“I have a problem with the OFT being involved in all of these procurement issues… I think that’s got to change… In my view I think it should be scrapped in the future… That might happen at some future date… we’ve got to look at the barriers and address them and sort them out.”
	Is that just his view, or the view of the whole Government? [Interruption.] He voted to let the OFT into the NHS. Why is he now changing his tune?
	The former care Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), said the same:
	“The one area I have my concerns about is the way”—
	the 2012 Act—
	“opened up the role of the OFT.”
	Yes, but did we not tell him that two years ago when he voted for the Act and when his hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who is sitting next to him, joined us in the Lobby to oppose it? This is exactly what we warned them about. We warned them that it would let the market run riot through the NHS, but they would not listen, and that is why we are where we are today.
	It is not just Ministers who are saying it; the comments by the chair of the Care Quality Commission at the weekend show the utter confusion in Government policy on competition in the NHS:
	“We need more competition…more entrants into the market from private-sector companies”.
	Will the Secretary of State clarify? Is that a statement of official Government policy? Is it his policy to get more private sector companies and more competition into the NHS? Is that what he wants? If that happens, it will mean more enforced competition leading to the fragmentation of care, and it will load extra costs on to the NHS at the worst possible time?

Grahame Morris: My right hon. Friend is making some positive points about the privatisation of the NHS, but does he share my concern that Monitor’s board is packed with executives who have come from private health sector companies?

Andy Burnham: We are seeing this across the NHS. We have also seen contracts going to companies whose shareholders are Tory party donors. The closeness of the links between the Tory party and private health care is worrying.
	Since April, when their Act came in, seven out of the 10 contracts let have gone outside the NHS. That is the clearest of all wake-up calls about what is happening to the NHS under this Government: it is being broken up and sold off. Under section 75 of the Act, clinicians have to put services out to tender, regardless of whether they are performing well, and that is the big difference between this Government and the last one. They are enforcing competition and marketisation in the NHS, but nobody voted for it.

Daniel Poulter: Why, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, were the previous Government prepared to pay private sector providers 11% more than NHS providers?

Andy Burnham: Let me explain the difference to the Minister. When we were in government we used the private sector in a supporting role to help bring down NHS waiting times; he is using the private sector to replace the public NHS. There is a very big difference. He might remember that as Secretary of State I introduced the NHS preferred provider policy. At the time, his party complained—it said it was wrong—but I did it because I believed in the public NHS. I believe in what it stands for, unlike him and his party.

Daniel Poulter: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, unlike him, I have worked for the NHS and understand what it is like to work on its front line. Will he confirm that the previous Government introduced private sector provision into the NHS and paid 11% more to private sector providers than to NHS providers? This Government will not allow that.

Andy Burnham: The Minister looks pleased with himself, but I am afraid he has got his facts wrong. We did not introduce the private sector into the NHS; it has always worked with the private sector to relieve pressure on waiting lists. As a doctor, he should know that. He might also know that waiting lists and times came right down under the last Government, because the private sector supported the NHS, and I am proud of how we brought waiting lists down, but he is using the private sector to replace the public NHS. He is saying that any qualified provider can provide NHS contracts. I had a policy of designating the NHS as the preferred provider. So let us get the facts straight. There is a major difference between the two positions.

Marcus Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman is so anti private sector involvement in the NHS, why did he allow an NHS hospital to be managed by the private sector?

Andy Burnham: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to Hinchingbrooke, the contract for which, he will recall, was signed under his Government. If he comes to the House, he should at least have the decency to get his facts straight. A procurement exercise began under the NHS preferred provider policy that I introduced, but
	he will find that his Government changed that to any qualified provider, and then appointed Circle health, whose shareholders also happen to be major donors to the Conservative party, to run the hospital.
	The Government are spending millions of pounds on competition advice under the regime introduced by the 2012 Act. Since last April, CCGs, have spent £5 million on external competition legal advice. How can that be justifiable at a time when we have a shortage of A and E doctors? Around the world, we see that competition not only costs more, not less, than a planned system such as the NHS, but results in more fragmentation. It will never be an answer to the pressures in A and E. We need an approach where clinicians can collaborate and develop integrated solutions to relieve pressure. How can we possibly achieve integrated care when there are several different providers, each providing a different part of the same patient pathway?
	The A and E crisis will be permanent, unless the Government accept its root causes and remove the barriers to its solution. The answer is in the motion before the House. The House can vote to reverse the competition policy introduced by the Government in the 2012 Act and to remove the market madness now holding back the NHS, and it could all be done because it would be consistent with the coalition agreement. The simple fact is that nobody voted for the NHS to be broken up in this way. Who gave this Prime Minister and Government permission to put the NHS up for sale? Nobody. They said there would be no top-down reorganisation. In the fullness of time, “No top-down reorganisation of the NHS” will be to this Prime Minister what, “No rise in tuition fees” is to the Deputy Prime Minister.
	The choice on the NHS in 2015 is becoming clear: it can stay on the fast track to fragmentation or it can return to its values of putting integration over fragmentation, collaboration over competition, and people before profits. That is what the Opposition believe in. Let us have that debate so that we can save our NHS for future generations.

Paul Uppal: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to yesterday’s sensitive statement on Sri Harmandir Sahib, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), made a point about documents pertaining to Lady Thatcher not being released. In fact, they were released back in January. I would appreciate your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, as this is a very sensitive matter, and I would hate to see it politicised.

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order, but this is a matter for the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), whom I understand he notified of his intention to raise it in the Chamber. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but he has got his concerns on the record, and I think he will have to leave it at that for today.

Jeremy Hunt: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“notes the strong performance of NHS accident and emergency departments this winter; further notes that the average waiting time to be seen in A&E has more than halved since 2010; commends the hard work of NHS staff who are seeing more people and carrying out more operations every year since May 2010; notes that this has been supported by the Government’s decision to protect the NHS budget and to shift resources to frontline patient care, delivering 12,000 more clinical staff and 23,000 fewer administrators; welcomes changes to the GP contract which restore the personal link between doctors and their most vulnerable patients; welcomes the announcement of the Better Care Fund which designates £3.8 billion to join up health and care provision and the Integration Pioneers to provide better care closer to home; believes that clinicians are in the best position to make judgements about the most appropriate care for their patients; notes that rules on tendering are no different to the rules that applied to primary care trusts; and, a year on from the publication of the Francis Report, notes that the NHS is placing an increased emphasis on compassionate care, integration, transparency, safe staffing and patient safety.”.
	The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) today made some strong accusations. He talked about the worst winter in A and E for a decade. For months now, he has been predicting a winter crisis in A and E, but as ever, when we look at the facts, they simply do not stack up. Let us look at the last week available for A and E statistics, which is the week ending 26 January. Over 96% of patients were seen within four hours. At this stage in the winter, we have missed the target four times; at the same stage when he was Health Secretary, he had missed it 12 times. That is three times more. [Interruption.] He says the target is different. It is true: on the basis of advice from clinicians, the target was reduced from 98% to 95%, so let us strip out the targets altogether and just ask a simple question. How many people every day are being treated within four hours? Under him, it was fewer than 52,000; under this Government it is nearly 55,000. That is 3,000 more people every day.
	The right hon. Gentleman did not just say that; he also said that people were waiting longer and longer to be seen, but that is simply not true. When he was Health Secretary, shockingly, people had to wait on average over an hour to be seen in emergency departments. With 350 more A and E consultants—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) rightly mentioned—under this Government we have cut that to just 30 minutes. The right hon. Gentleman has the gall to stand up and criticise a record that is better than his.

Julie Hilling: In relation to those targets, the Secretary of State ignores the number of people who have not registered because they are in ambulances or because there is a huge queue to be registered. I wonder how that is factored into his claim that people are always seen within half an hour, when patently they are not.

Jeremy Hunt: With great respect to the hon. Lady, it was under her Government that we had the horrific tragedy of ambulances circling round hospitals because hospitals did not want to admit them in case they missed their four-hour A and E target. There is a lot of pressure in the system, but the fact is that 3,000 more people every day are being seen within four hours than when her
	Government were in power. That is something that A and E departments up and down the country can be rightly proud of.

Graham Evans: I have had reason to visit my accident and emergency four times with my young son, who is 10 years old and an enthusiastic rugby and football player. On those four occasions—for a broken nose, a damaged knee, damaged ankles and damaged elbows—we were seen within minutes for pain relief and were out of A and E within two hours.

Jeremy Hunt: That is exactly what is happening in so much of the country. Despite a lot of pressure, our A and E departments are holding up extremely well. I wonder how the staff in that hospital would feel about the constant running down of the NHS that we get from the Opposition.
	Let us look at the figures that the right hon. Member for Leigh quoted in more detail. How does he get the number he quoted for the worst winter for a decade?

Andy Burnham: Let us have a proper debate. I did not say the worst winter for a decade; I said the worst year in A and E for a decade. Let us get it straight. The Secretary of State should not redefine the question at the beginning of his speech. I am talking about the last 12 months, from this day today back to February 2013. Let us get that absolutely clear and let him answer for the last year, during which he has missed the A and E target 44 times out of 52.

Jeremy Hunt: Let us be absolutely clear. Why has Labour decided to remove the word “crisis” from the motion it submitted to the House this afternoon? It does not mention the word “crisis” at all, because the winter crisis that the right hon. Gentleman has been predicting for over six months now has simply not materialised.
	Let us look—this is important—at how the right hon. Gentleman has been manipulating the statistics. He knows perfectly well that there is no A and E target for single categories of A and E; rather, the target applies to all A and Es. He gets his numbers by singling out the biggest A and E departments, type 1s, which are extremely important. How did type 1s—the most important and biggest A and Es—perform during the winter when he was Health Secretary? Let me tell the House: they missed their target every single week up until this point in the year. There are indeed pressures on A and E departments, but why does he think the country will listen to him, when by his own yardstick he failed to deliver every single week up until this point in the year?
	The right hon. Gentleman has been predicting a winter crisis for months, and we are still waiting. For him, these debates are not about the reality on the ground; they are about hyperbole and spin. As someone who has been Health Secretary, he must know—this is a serious point—the effect that lurid headlines based on dubious statistics have on morale for staff and those using the NHS, but still we get the same cracked record, because for him, politics always matters more than patients.
	It is not just A and E performance; under this Government—[Interruption.] It might not be comfortable for the Opposition, but let us look at the figures. Under this Government, MRSA rates have virtually halved,
	mixed-sex wards have nearly been eliminated and when it comes to elective care, more than 35,000 fewer people are waiting more than 18 weeks. That is thanks to the efforts of hard-working front-line staff. Our NHS is doing 800,000 more operations year in, year out than it did under Labour—something we can be immensely proud of.

Margaret Ritchie: My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Secretary of State, has referred to comments by Dr Cliff Mann about the shortage of A and E doctors and the fact that the issue was flagged up some two years ago. What will the Government do to address the 50% shortage in A and E doctors, not only in England but throughout the UK?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that there has been a long-standing issue with recruitment into A and E. We have made some good progress. We have 350 more consultants in post than at the time of the election, but we need to do even better, so we are looking at the training process for A and E consultants. We are also looking at the contractual terms for A and E consultants, particularly as they relate to things such as shift work, to try to make it a more attractive profession. I am confident that these issues are now being addressed—in fact, I have had some encouraging feedback from the College of Emergency Medicine saying that it, too, is confident about that.

Andy Slaughter: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I will give way in a minute, but this is an Opposition day debate, so I want to return to the central motion. Let me remind the right hon. Member for Leigh that he told this House—in fact, he had an Opposition day debate to do it—that the NHS budget had been cut in real terms. It had not: it rose. He also claimed that the number of nurses was being cut, when actually it went up. His attempts to talk up a winter crisis have been disproved time and again. That is important, because we have not had a proper apology to this House in relation to the letter he received from the chief executive of the south-western ambulance trust complaining about his spinning, which stated:
	“information provided to your office in response to a Freedom of Information request…has been misinterpreted and misreported in order to present a grossly inaccurate picture for the purposes of apparent political gain.”
	The right hon. Gentleman should not be playing politics with the pressures in A and E; he should be getting behind front-line staff, who are working extremely hard and who find that kind of tactic extremely demoralising.

Andy Burnham: For the record, I am afraid that the letter the Secretary of State quotes had its facts wrong. The information provided by the south-western ambulance service that I quoted was accurate. I wrote to the service the day it wrote to me to put it straight, and I am afraid it has not come back since and said that I was wrong; so again, let us get the facts straight. We have had enough spin from the Secretary of State; he needs to start dealing in a bit of fact.

Jeremy Hunt: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what the facts are. The other word I heard him use several times in his speech was “complacency”. I will
	tell him what complacency is: it is complaining about an English NHS that is hitting its A and E targets and completely ignoring Labour-controlled Wales, where the NHS has been missing its A and E targets since 2009. Something else that is complacent is this idea Labour has that, almost a year after the Francis report, the lessons of Mid Staffs stop at the border of England and Wales—that Wales has nothing to learn and does not need to do a Keogh report into excess mortality rates, which the Welsh Labour Government have consistently refused to do. People in Welsh hospitals are suffering because the Welsh NHS has refused to bite the bullet on excess mortality rates.

Andy Slaughter: Tonight, at a “Save Our Hospitals” meeting in west London, I shall be speaking to A and E doctors and GPs about the largest-ever closure programme: four NHS emergency departments are to close in west London. Eight west London MPs, including me, have asked the Secretary of State to meet us and discuss the issue. Shall I tell those who attend tonight’s meeting that the Secretary of State is still refusing to meet eight MPs who collectively represent nearly a million people in west London?

Jeremy Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I must follow a strict legal process in relation to such decisions, and we have had an extensive consultation. However, let me say this to him. When he talks to those MPs, he should tell them the facts about the proposals for north-west London which I approved—proposals for three brand-new hospitals in which seven-day working is to be introduced, 24/7 obstetrics, 16/7 paediatrics, seven-day opening of GP’s surgeries, and a range of other services which will help to address precisely the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Leigh in connection with transforming out-of-hospital care, which I support. As a result of those proposals, the services that I have listed will be available in north-west London before they will be available in many other parts of the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will inform the MPs whom he is meeting of those important facts.

Gordon Birtwistle: My right hon. Friend may remember that in 2009 the Labour Government transferred an A and E unit from Burnley to Blackburn, some 15 miles away. Last week, we opened the doors of a new emergency facility in Burnley to replace the one that Labour had shipped out. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right to invest capital in A and E, and to stop listening to the rubbish that is being spoken by Labour Members?

Jeremy Hunt: I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration. This is the shadow Secretary of State who said that it was irresponsible to maintain the NHS budget at its current levels and who actually believes that it should be cut, and he has stuck to that position. It is not possible to make such investments by following the right hon. Gentleman’s advice.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked a great deal about competition, and I am afraid that his comments about that also showed a wilful disregard for the facts. He raised two distinct issues, and he was right to do so, because they are important. The first relates to mergers. NHS hospitals often need to concentrate services for clinical and safety reasons, but the involvement of the
	Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission is not a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, as the right hon. Gentleman alleged. As he well knows, it is as a result of powers that they have under Labour’s Enterprise Act 2002. All my Front-Bench colleagues agree with me that we must ensure that when those powers are exercised, they are exercised in a way that is in the best interests of patients. For that reason, I have had useful discussions with both the Competition and Markets Authority—which is replacing the OFT and the Competition Commission—and Monitor about how their respective roles can be clarified.

Kevin Barron: If the Secretary of State believes that, can he explain why the Health and Social Care Act contains a section stating that any mergers of NHS trusts must be referred to the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I can explain that. When drafting the Act, my predecessor wanted to ensure that investigations would not be carried out by both Monitor and the Competition Commission. [Interruption.] If Members wish me to answer the question, I will happily do so.
	If we repealed the Health and Social Care Act—as the right hon. Gentleman has often argued should happen—the Competition Commission and the OFT, or the Competition and Markets Authority, would still have the power to stop mergers, under the Enterprise Act. The right hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before presenting his arguments.
	Secondly, the Health and Social Care Act did not introduce new rules in relation to procurement. For all the efforts of the right hon. Member for Leigh to convince people otherwise, clinical commissioning groups observe the same procurement requirements as applied to primary care trusts. Labour may have made many mistakes in office, and the right hon. Gentleman may have shifted his own views dramatically to the left, but it will not do for him to try to seek cover for that by attaching blame to the Health and Social Care Act.

Andy Burnham: If everything is exactly the same, why did the Government legislate? Why did they need a 300-page Bill if they were doing everything that the previous Government had done? Let the Secretary of State answer this question directly. There was a huge debate in the House about section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act, and his Minister had to withdraw the regulations and rewrite them, but the view of the entire NHS is that section 75 requires services to be put out to open tender, and does not leave discretion with GPs. GPs cannot decide, as the Secretary of State has claimed. Services are being forced out to open tender. Is that the correct position, or is it not?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me make the position absolutely clear.

Andy Burnham: Answer!

Jeremy Hunt: I am about to answer, if the right hon. Gentleman will be a little bit patient. The Act does not change the procurement requirements under which PCTs operated. It does not change the locus of the Competition Commission or the OFT under the Enterprise Act.
	While we are correcting some facts, the right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know—as would my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), but he is no longer in the Chamber—that we have the figures for the number of people admitted to the NHS with scurvy in 2011-12 and in 2012-13. In 2011-12, the number of admissions not just to A and E departments but in total—[Interruption.] Yes, including A and E departments. In 2011-12, eight people were admitted—[Interruption.] This was the right hon. Gentleman’s big argument about why A and E departments are under so much pressure. In 2012-13, 18 people were admitted. With the greatest respect, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is building his house on sand.

Luciana Berger: We have figures for 2010-11, because they were included in the answer to a parliamentary question that I asked just before Christmas. The Minister of State, who is present, replied that they were not the total figures, because the Department had the hospital admission figures but did not have the figures for primary care admissions.

Jeremy Hunt: With the greatest respect, what we heard earlier from the right hon. Member for Leigh was a big argument about a massive growth of pressure on A and E departments that had been caused by, among other things, scurvy, and we found that the total number of admissions was 18. I think that that says a great deal.

Stewart Jackson: On the subject of disastrous mistakes made by the Labour Government, may I point out that one of the omissions in their motion is the lack of any apology for the £63 billion ticking time bomb generated by off-balance-sheet dodgy deals under the private finance initiative? The worst in the whole country, which was signed off by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) at Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals Trust, has produced an indicative structural debt of £40 million a year. [Interruption.]

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps the situation is put into perspective when we know that those PFI deals are costing the NHS more than £1 billion a year: £1 billion that could have been spent on providing compassionate care and looking after patients with dignity and respect, but instead is having to finance Labour’s appalling mismanaged PFI contracts.
	Let me return to the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Leigh. I think that a much more substantive argument relates to the things that he chose not to say. This is the day before the anniversary of the Mid Staffs report, and this is the day on which hospitals are finally putting behind them Labour’s appalling legacy of poor care. We have 14 hospitals in special measures—all of them, incidentally, with A and E departments—making encouraging progress after a very difficult year, with 650 additional nursing staff and 50 board-level replacements between them. Every single one of those hospitals had warning signs under Labour, but rather than sorting out the problems, Labour chose to sweep them under the carpet, sometimes because they had arisen during the run-up to an election. There are 5,900 more clinical staff in the NHS than there were a year ago, and there
	are 3,300 more hospital nurses than there were at the time of the last election. All those people are vital to the functioning of our A and E departments.
	Bullying, harassment and intimidation were perhaps the ugliest features of Labour’s management of the NHS. Now we have seen courageous A and E whistleblower Helene Donnelly being given a new year honour, alongside brave campaigner Julie Bailey, who was literally left out in the cold when she came to lobby the right hon. Member for Leigh about poor care at Mid Staffs.
	There is much to do—poor care persists in too many places—but with a new Ofsted-style inspection regime, in England but not in Labour-run Wales, we can at least be confident that poor care in A and E departments and throughout hospitals will be highlighted quickly, and not hidden away. We will keep people out of A and E departments in the first place—that is something to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—with the return of named GPs for the over-75s and integrated health and social care through the better care fund: precisely the joined-up, personal and compassionate care that was envisaged when the NHS was founded 65 years ago.

Barbara Keeley: Was not one of the key points that Francis made about transparency? The Secretary of State is making claims about staffing numbers which are not recognised. Ministers have had the opportunity to go along with a better scheme of transparency in hospitals, whereby they display every day on the ward their staffing ratios—as Salford Royal does. The Secretary of State will not accept that, however. If he thinks that putting out the totals of staff once a month is an adequate way of dealing with the Francis recommendations, he is fooling himself.

Jeremy Hunt: We on the Government Benches will take absolutely no lessons about transparency in the NHS from Labour after what it did for so many years. I think what we are introducing is a huge step forward, because for the first time every hospital in the country will, as a minimum, have to publish their ward-by-ward staffing ratios every single month. They can publish more—they can do what Salford does—but for every hospital in the country to do that every month is a huge step forward.

James Morris: The Secretary of State talks about finding alternatives to people presenting at A and E. May I commend Rowley Regis hospital in my constituency, which has just opened a GP-led primary care assessment centre in order to deal with people in the community—in a community setting—rather than having to refer to A and E? That hospital used to have five in-patient wards, but they were closed by the Labour party and the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) when he was Secretary of State. However, three of them have been reopened in the past three years, which is a substantial new investment in a very important community hospital.

Jeremy Hunt: I commend what is happening; it is very important that locally driven solutions are providing good alternatives to going to A and E. One of the most important things we can do for my hon. Friend’s constituents is make sure we have proper continuity of care so that for our most vulnerable patients there is a doctor who knows what is up with them at any time, whether they are in or out of hospital, and who can give
	them joined-up care and make sure they have a proper care plan wrapped around them. That is the kind of care we need to see.

Anne Main: My right hon. Friend is making a very pertinent point about transparency, because again what the Opposition refuse to acknowledge is how many patients were left off the books. It has been discovered in my hospital trust that a significant number of patients who were not discharged because there was not a link-up with social care were left off the books and so did not show in the statistics.

Jeremy Hunt: I think my hon. Friend is talking about the issues in West Hertfordshire trust, which I am extremely concerned about. The whole House will want to get behind the efforts of the outstanding chief executive there, who is sorting out those problems.
	It is of course challenging when we read about these things in the media, but we have to remember that it is essential that poor care or cover-ups such as the ones that may have happened in that case are brought to the surface very quickly. That is the big change we want to make.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I want to make some progress, but I will give way once more.

Guy Opperman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the right policy to highlight trusts such as Northumbria, which is leading the way on integration between hospice care and local authorities, and which is also assisting another trust, in this case North Cumbria, which is presently in special measures and which we hope will come out of them very soon?

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely. One of the most encouraging developments in the last year was the setting up of buddying systems so that hospitals in difficulty such as North Cumbria—where I think there was a pay-out of £3.6 million to just one person under the last Government because of some utterly appalling care—are given help by a hospital that is being run well.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I shall give way one last time.

Marcus Jones: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the progress being made under the Keogh review at the George Eliot hospital, where changes to working practices and more innovation are meaning that the A and E department is turning into one of the best performing in the country?

Jeremy Hunt: I am delighted with the progress being made at the George Eliot and I commend my hon. Friend on the interest he has shown. A lot of that progress has come also from the outstanding support from Dame Julie Moore and the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I will make some progress, because I need to make one final point.
	All of these changes cost money, at a time when we are still living with the economic mess we inherited from Labour. None of these changes would be possible without the tough decisions we took on public spending in 2010, all opposed by Labour, which allowed the NHS budget to be protected and, as growth returns to the economy, secured for the long term.

Jamie Reed: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Hunt: No. Had Labour won the last election, the NHS budget would not just have been cut at the outset; it would have been cut and cut again as the country was brought to its knees in a Greece, Portugal or Ireland-style collapse.

Jamie Reed: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: Our amendment talks about the Francis report, which I know is desperately uncomfortable territory for the Labour Opposition—the 81 times they refused to have a public inquiry; the 50 warning signs missed by Labour Ministers and the officials working for them; the warning signs ignored at countless other hospitals now in special measures.

Jamie Reed: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: It was a grim saga—

Jamie Reed: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Mr Reed, the Secretary of State has repeatedly made it clear that he is not prepared to give way to you, so perhaps we could move on with the debate. Perhaps you will find another way to make your point.

Jeremy Hunt: I think that that demonstrates, Madam Deputy Speaker, how much the Labour Opposition do not like hearing about the failings at Mid Staffs.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I say to the Secretary of State that actually it does not indicate anything except that you do not wish to give way to the hon. Gentleman. So, return to your speech.

Jeremy Hunt: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We will all draw our own conclusions about why the Opposition are using these tactics, but I want to offer the Opposition today, a year after the Francis report, a chance to draw a line under this whole tragedy. I as Secretary of State am happy to move on from Mid Staffs in terms of the debates in this House if the Opposition pass three tests: to tell Labour in Wales to do a Keogh-style mortality review so that we deal with the poor safety in Welsh hospitals, just as we are doing in England; to apologise to the relatives and survivors of Mid Staffs not just for what happened, but for the policy mistakes that led to what happened; and to commit Labour to more compassionate, safer care in the NHS by promising never to accuse those who highlight problems of “running down the NHS”, and instead to support every whistleblower
	and concerned member of the public when they raise concerns. Do that, and the world will know that Labour has changed; but fail to do it, and the country will know for sure that the NHS is simply not safe in Labour’s hands.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Many Members wish to speak. I am not going to set a time limit at the beginning, but I ask each Member to take no longer than eight minutes, including interventions. If Members take more time than that, it will be necessary to place a time limit on all contributions.

Grahame Morris: Given the heated exchanges we have just had, I want to make it clear that I am speaking in support of the Opposition motion.
	Given the extent of the crisis that is being faced by accident and emergency departments around the country, one would be forgiven for thinking that this Government must have inherited an NHS on the brink of collapse. In fact, the opposite is true. I know we have stopped doing the patient satisfaction surveys, but at the time that was discontinued, patient satisfaction was at an all-time high and we must not forget that the national health service had been transformed by the Labour party. I worked in the health service and I remember what it was like in the 18 years when the Tories were running it. The NHS that the Labour party inherited in 1997 was transformed. The budget for the NHS was £30 billion then, but when we left the NHS in good health in 2010, the budget was over £100 billion. The 18 years of Tory neglect had been thoroughly addressed with new hospital buildings. Every single A and E department was replaced.
	What have we seen since? We have seen an unwanted top-down reorganisation, which nobody wanted and nobody voted for, coupled with under-investment, and the slashing of alternative services has placed a huge burden on our A and E services. By referring to alternative services I am talking, for instance, about walk-in treatment centres, including my own excellent Healthworks in Paradise lane, Easington Colliery. It is under enormous pressure yet offers a fantastic service with out-of-hours and weekend opening, but we are not sure whether that will continue because of pressures that the clinical commissioning group is facing. By almost any standard, it is clear that the performances of accident and emergency departments are struggling under the current Government. It is clear that patients are waiting longer to be seen and that the numbers of delayed discharges and emergency admissions are up—I think the Secretary of State admitted that. The number of cancelled operations is certainly up.

Nicholas Soames: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman is saying; he is making some very good points. Does he acknowledge that 45% of the health service budget is spent on 5% of the population—namely, those vulnerable people with multiple chronic illnesses? Getting that right must be the key to the future. What does he think the solution is?

Grahame Morris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because his point is germane to my argument. I shall develop that subject in the few minutes I have left when I talk about the consequences of what is happening in social care. I certainly feel that some of the policies that his Government have supported have contributed to the crisis. For example, the top-down reorganisation has had a damaging effect on A and E performance. I will address that point in a moment.
	Other hon. Members have spoken today, in interventions on my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), about patients being ferried to hospitals in police cars. That has certainly happened in County Durham, and it must be a cause for concern. The A and E crisis can largely be placed at the Government’s door, because they have not faced up to some of the problems. It has rightly been pointed out that the number of admissions had risen by 633,000, not least because of demographic changes involving more older people and people with core morbidities and multiple conditions. That is placing a huge amount of extra pressure on A and E departments, but that pressure is being compounded by damaging cuts to local authority budgets.
	My own local authority, Durham county council, is experiencing cuts of £222 million between 2011 and 2017. I know that Ministers will say that social care is ring-fenced and that £3.8 billion is being transferred to the home care fund, to be made available to clinical commissioning groups and local authorities, but what that means in real terms for the people living in Easington is that EDPIP—the East Durham Positive Inclusion Partnership—which supports frail elderly people and young people in vulnerable families, is closing down because of a lack of funding from the local authority. Similarly, East Durham Community Transport, which provides transport to take the frail elderly—including my mother, incidentally—to day centres and elsewhere, has been severely curtailed.
	The Government have been warned by experts that cutting the staggering £1.8 billion from council social care budgets in the first three years of this Government would have a knock-on effect for the NHS, particularly in accident and emergency departments. That point has been made in expert witnesses’ evidence to the Health Select Committee, on which I have the honour to serve. Because of the cuts to social care, fewer older people are getting adequate support in the community, and are therefore visiting A and E departments instead. The impact of that is twofold. First, it means that those with care needs are not getting the treatment they need. Secondly, it means that our A and E departments are being put under great strain. Directly and indirectly, the Government have ignored warnings that by slashing social care they would make it difficult to discharge patients with care needs because it would be unsafe to send them home.

Barbara Keeley: Perhaps it would be pertinent at this point to mention the comments of Sir Bruce Keogh to the Health Committee’s inquiry into urgent and emergency medicine. When I asked him if the cuts in social care bothered him, he said:
	“Yes, it does bother us and I think it bothers everybody. We are trying to maintain a stable and improving service in the NHS at a time that our colleagues in social care are taking a massive hit to their baseline.”

Grahame Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I hope that her point will not be lost on Ministers. That is a significant factor.
	The lack of adequate support in the community and in the home has stored up problems in the NHS, and I am convinced that they will be exacerbated by what is now happening. I know that we have done some good work on the Care Bill—there is good intent there—but I have real concerns about whether the resources necessary to make social care really work will be provided. We have seen attendances at hospital A and Es continuing to rise.

Norman Lamb: We have had this discussion on the Care Bill. The hon. Gentleman talks about the need for additional resource, but in Committee there was no indication from the Opposition that they would make a commitment to provide extra resources. Is he now saying that they would do so?

Grahame Morris: I cannot thank the Minister for that intervention. We have had many exchanges during the passage of the Care Bill, but that decision is above my pay grade. It would be for those on our Front Bench to determine the level of such resources. The purpose of this debate is to consider the A and E crisis. I would like to think that that commitment could be made, however, and if the Minister is asking me personally whether I support it, the answer is that I do. I believe we should also support free end-of-life care, which I know the Minister and many others on the Government Front Bench support. However, I must make some progress with my speech.
	The lack of adequate support in the community has had an impact. It has contributed to increased attendances at A and E departments. I hope that Members will not have forgotten that, two years ago, the Prime Minister said:
	“I refuse to go back to the days when people had to wait for hours on end to be seen in A&E”.
	Well, I am afraid that we have gone back to those days. Sadly, by removing the social care needed for many elderly people to avoid unnecessary trips to hospital and to return home when their stay should be over, the Prime Minister is bringing back those days. I urge hon. Members to support the Opposition motion today.

Jeremy Lefroy: First, I want to praise all those who work in accident and emergency departments up and down the country to provide a vital full-time 24/7 service locally and nationally. Many Members have already pointed out that it is almost a year since the Francis report was published. Its reception in the House demonstrated one of the best examples of cross-party respect from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and, subsequently, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State. I would like to see that cross-party support being built on.
	I should also like to praise the Secretary of State for the work that he has done to take the recommendations forward. He has mentioned some of them today, including those relating to the chief inspector of hospitals, to social care and to general practice. Many more aspects
	of the report have already been mentioned, and there will no doubt be more to come. I must stress, however, that we need to have a proper debate on the Francis report now, one year on, in Government time in the House, to see where we have got to.
	I also pay tribute to all those people who did the work that enabled the Francis report to come about. They include Julie Bailey, Helene Donnelly and the many others who worked with Cure the NHS, and all those in Stafford hospital who have subsequently responded to the report to make the hospital a place that I am proud to say now provides some of the best care in our region, including those in the A and E department. We have, however, lost our 24/7 A and E department; we now have a 14/7 A and E department. That is something that we are going to have to look at again; we need to look at how we are to cover the out-of-hours emergency care in our area. Nevertheless, we now have some of the best A and E care in the region, because it is consultant led. We now have sufficient consultants to cover that service.
	I want to make four points that I believe need to be taken fully into account in this debate on A and E services. The first is about doctors. The Secretary of State has already mentioned the problem with recruiting people into emergency medicine. It is not seen as the most attractive career, perhaps because of the shift work involved. We need to look at the whole training structure. Perhaps it would be better for trainee doctors to spend more time in accident and emergency departments in their foundation years. Perhaps we should add a third foundation year in order to enable them to spend more time in A and E, because that is surely where they will learn most about this kind of medicine.
	We also need to look carefully at the role of specialisms in the NHS. Although that would be the subject for a whole other debate, it is very important, because we have more than 60 specialisms in this country, compared with about 20 in Norway. Their increasing role means there is a need to maintain a full-time specialist rota of up to 10 consultants, which is placing increasing stress on the finances of the NHS. That is true in A and E, as elsewhere. That is a subject for another day, but it is a very important point.
	Another area to mention is demographics, although I will not go on at length about it because the facts are known to us all. In Staffordshire, we are expecting the number of over-85s to double and the number of over-60s to go up by 50% in the next 25 years. There is no doubt that we have reached a tipping point, particularly as the baby boomers enter their retirement years, and that is not recognised. It is not just a straight line graph; there is a bit of exponential growth in the number of older people now coming in to our hospitals. That is to be expected.

Yasmin Qureshi: I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said so far. Will he also consider the fact that A and E waiting time rises have also been caused by: the effect of walk-in centres closing; the closure of NHS Direct and its replacement by the botched 111 system, which has not helped anyone; and a real cut in adult care, which has meant that a lot of elderly people have been taken to hospitals, instead of being cared for at home, and they cannot be released unless they have somewhere safe to go to?

Jeremy Lefroy: I have no doubt that some of those things will have caused increased pressure. That brings me nicely to my next point.

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend may not be aware that a briefing was given by the College of Emergency Medicine to Members of Parliament. One of its representatives, I believe it was Dr Mann, was asked by hon. Members about the closure of walk-in centres and he replied that there was an initial blip but that levels went back to what they were before. So in his view those closures made very little difference.

Jeremy Lefroy: We do not have sufficient data on this. I urge the Government to examine how we can collect more data about the reasons why people come to A and E and whether their visits could have been prevented by other provision. I am sure that that can be done in some cases, but at the moment we are arguing at cross purposes because we do not have sufficient data.
	Another point, on the lack of integration, relates to discharges. There is pressure on hospitals to discharge people, particularly the elderly, because of the pressure on beds. One GP in my constituency raised this issue, citing one of their patients who was improperly discharged and saying that they were very distressed at the condition in which they found him. Stafford hospital has come up with a solution, which it will implement shortly, whereby every patient with complex needs will not be discharged unless it is absolutely clear that they have proper care in the community to go to. We would expect that for all patients, and I am very glad that Stafford hospital is taking that up.
	The final reason to mention is that patients are often confused about where to go, and I am therefore glad that the Government have undertaken a review of the classification of A and E departments. We have A and E departments, urgent care centres and minor injuries units, and we have various grades of A and E. We need a national classification that makes it clear what services people can get at which point. Often people turn up and find that they have come to the inappropriate place.
	I also wish to make a few remarks about the competition matters that have been raised in the debate, and I do this from a local perspective. The trust special administrators for the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust have proposed that Stafford hospital should merge with University Hospital of North Staffordshire in Stoke and that Cannock hospital should merge with Wolverhampton’s trust. That is the right solution, it is not being opposed and we are not finding any problem with competition law. There is a big difference between the acute and non-acute sectors. As the acute sector runs in a tight way around the country, it is very difficult to see how there can be much competition in provision within it, because that has been provided exclusively by NHS trusts up to now. Within the non-acute sector we have found in my constituency that, under competition rules, an NHS service that went to the private sector under the previous Government has come back into the NHS under this Government, because it was determined that the NHS would provide a better service. So this does work both ways; it does not always go the way some people think it might.
	We must not lose sight of the real hard work that people are doing in A and Es up and down the country. Almost all the work that goes on there is incredibly good and is what our constituents need, but we must make sure that the points that I and others have outlined are dealt with, because with the demographics going the way they are, we will face increasing pressures year on year.

Kevin Barron: First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for tabling the motion, because it gives us an opportunity to examine the whole issue of competition. Hon. Members will recall that I intervened on the Secretary of State on the subject of when competition came in to health care in this country, and he said that it had always been there. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) will recall, as they served on the Committee for the Health and Social Care Bill, that when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), a Minister at the time, to ask what the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading had got to do with the mergers of NHS trusts, he did not answer me. I asked that question during a clause stand part debate and he did not know that the question was coming. It was not part of an amendment and it was not flagged up to the advisers as being something likely to happen. I raised it on several occasions in that Committee and on the Floor of the House during an Opposition day when he was winding up, and he did not answer me then either.
	We have now got the answer, and it came in November. My right hon. Friend mentioned what the then outgoing NHS chief executive said to the Health Committee last November. Commenting on the new rules, he said:
	“I think we’ve got a problem, which may need legislative change.”
	Of course, that is absolutely right, because we had legislative change when the Health and Social Care Act 2012 came in—that is the truth. It changed statute: it meant that the OFT and the Competition Commission can interfere in health care. That is what it did and that is what it was meant to do. That is what the Opposition questioned and voted against at the time—that is the truth.
	My right hon. Friend talked about the cost of all this in terms of the Freedom of Information Act and the millions of pounds spent on external competition lawyers. My local Rotherham hospital has spent tens of thousands of pounds on London lawyers, and for what? There is no prospect of a merger or anything else. This money is seeping out of the local health pot, just so that advice about competition law can be got from lawyers based in London. This is real: if people want to do anything, they are going to have to take legal advice about doing it. That is the truth.
	I have to say to my right hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary that he may have an ally in the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). I am told that he said last week:
	“I have a problem with OFT being involved in all these procurement issues…I think that’s got to change. In my view it should be scrapped in the future.”
	I wait to see how he is going to address these things—if he did indeed say that—when he winds up this debate. If he did say it, I agree with him, as would many others out there.
	I wish to make a couple of other points, one of which is about what happened in Bournemouth and Poole, where a merger was blocked by the Competition Commission last autumn. When it was blocked, the chief executives of the Bournemouth and the Poole hospital trusts said in a joint statement that they were “deeply disappointed” by the decision. They said:
	“The benefits of merger, which included increased access to consultant care and new patient facilities, will now be much more difficult to deliver, which is disappointing for both our patients and staff.”
	They went on to say:
	“We recognise that the Competition Commission has a statutory role to perform”—
	my argument is that it never had such a role before a change in the law—
	“and specific criteria which it must use to assess benefits, but we believe that the outcome of the process is fundamentally wrong. The assessment of the merger was always weighted to put competition ahead of benefits to patients, and we do not believe the NHS is best served in this way.”
	The Government amendment to our motion today states that
	“clinicians are in the best position to make judgements about the most appropriate care for their patients.”
	That is not the case in Bournemouth and Poole. The Competition Commission has decided, against clinicians’ wishes, to stop the merger going ahead. That is the truth, and that is how we should read the amendment. It is false in what it says. It then goes on to say that it
	“notes that the rules on tendering are no different to the rules that apply to primary care trusts.”
	That is not true. The rules changed when the Health and Social Care Act was passed. That is why competition and changes in the health service are matters for lawyers now. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) might represent one of the hospitals, but his hospital and his local clinicians stopped the merger because the Competition Commission said that it was wrong. This is about competition law, and not about providing patient services.

Tobias Ellwood: This came in in 2002.

Kevin Barron: Let me touch briefly on the matter that is in today’s press. The Secretary of State said that we had to keep people out of A and E; he is absolutely right. If I made an addition to our motion today, it would have been around the issue of alcohol. Alcohol is a major problem in accident and emergency departments throughout the land. It used to be an issue on Friday and Saturday nights, but now it is an issue seven nights a week in cities. Not that long ago, the Prime Minister said that the Government were considering putting a minimum price on a unit of alcohol to reduce binge drinking and to improve public health. Today we had an announcement from the Minister for Crime Prevention, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—not from the Department of Health—that the Government are to ban the sale of cheap alcohol in England and Wales because they want to cut back on alcohol-related
	crime. People who work daily with the problems of alcohol and alcoholism have expressed views on the matter. The Alcohol Health Alliance, which includes the medical royal colleges, said that the impact of the ban on selling at below duty plus VAT would be negligible. It will affect about 1.3% of sales.
	Eric Appleby, the chief executive of Alcohol Concern, said:
	“The idea that banning below-cost sales will help tackle our problem with alcohol is laughable, it’s confusing and close to impossible to implement. On top of this, reports show it would have an impact on just 1% of alcohol products sold in shops and supermarkets leaving untouched most of those drinks that are so blatantly targeted at young people. The government is wasting time when international evidence shows that minimum unit pricing is what we need to save lives and cut crime.”
	I could go on, but suffice it to say that the Government have completely dumped the idea that alcohol is a threat to the public health of this country. The measure will not stop people bingeing. It will not stop alcohol-fuelled people from turning up at A and E. The truth is that some 50% of people who turn up at A and E get no treatment at all. We should be looking at the societal effects that are driving people into A and E departments—whether it is closure of walk-in centres or the fact that too many people are falling down because they have had too much to drink and believe that they have a right to block up A and Es and potentially slow down treatment for those who are facing an emergency. The Government are ducking the issues related to alcohol and are ducking the problems in A and E departments up and down the land. It is about time they showed some courage and did something positive. Alcohol is a public health issue, not a crime issue.

Paul Burstow: May I start by agreeing with the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron)? The issue of alcohol has been ducked by successive Governments for a very long time. He is absolutely right to campaign on it, and I absolutely agree that we need to see the introduction of minimum unit pricing. However, we should not in any way give the impression that that of itself is the entire solution to what is a broad societal problem. None the less, it most certainly would make a significant contribution. I hope that, at the next election, it will be part of my party’s platform on public health issues.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) was right to call for a debate on the Francis report. I hope we will be granted Government time to debate it, if not, I would certainly join him in an application to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on the Floor of the House. We should have the opportunity to bring Ministers here to debate the report.
	Before addressing some of the comments made by the shadow Secretary of State, I wish to place on the record my thanks to the staff at my local hospital, St Helier, for all the work they do not just over the winter period when the pressure is undoubtedly at its most acute, but right across the year. Having been in the hospital over the Christmas period singing carols, which hopefully did not discomfort people too much, I saw for myself just how that pressure can build. I also saw how well the staff are perceived by their patients.
	I want to register a frustration with the Minister today about something that has been going on in my patch for several years now. For almost as long as I have been an MP, clouds have from time to time gathered over the future of my local hospital. In 2010, the previous Labour Government signed off an outline business case for the rebuild and refurbishment of St Helier’s hospital. That was great news, and a culmination of work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and me. We secured funding from the Government worth some £219 million. Then there was a change of Government; a coalition came in. Given the spending review and the desire to tackle the public borrowing problem, it was far from certain whether that funding would stay in the Budget. Again, the three of us lobbied hard, and we were delighted when my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was able to confirm the funding.
	However, in the dying days of the primary care trusts, a review was launched of accident and emergency and maternity services in south-west London. It was called Better Services Better Value, but it offered neither. It has been an absolutely crystal clear case study of everything that is bad and wrong about NHS change management. There are some really good examples of change management, stroke care in London being the exemplar. However, we have to refer to that example too often, as there are too few other really good examples of change having been managed well. All too often the public feel left out of such processes, and it is no wonder they mount the barricades to oppose change of which they feel no ownership.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I were repeatedly told during the process by the then chief executive of the primary care trust, Ann Radmore, that the rebuild of St Helier was a fixed point in the whole process. It was not to be touched; it was sacrosanct and the rebuild would happen regardless. I have to say, however, that the events of the past three years have left me feeling betrayed and lied to. As a result of the uncertainty caused by BSBV, three years on—despite GPs having now declared BSBV’s proposals unviable, and having gone back to the drawing board—my local trust and clinical commissioning group are saying they cannot proceed with that £219 million. They lack the will and vision to take it forward, and I hope the Minister can confirm today that the £219 million is still in the Department’s budget lines and that he will encourage my local NHS to work with my local councils and Members of Parliament to bring forward these plans.
	The motion moved by the shadow Secretary of State today feels a bit thin, and a little like a re-editing of its previous two incarnations in an attempt to create the sense of a febrile environment of a looming and predicted crisis and calamity that is about to engulf us all. That tactic has been adopted by the Opposition time and again, and time and again it has not been borne out on the ground. The analysis of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is deeply political, and let me give just one example. He lays the blame for delayed discharges principally at the door of budget pressures on social service departments. That is not true. If he looks at the figures, he will see that the bulk of the pressure is caused by delayed discharges in the NHS, not social services. I do not pretend for one moment
	that there are not parts of the country where social service cuts are impacting on delayed discharges, but the picture is more nuanced and complicated, and I wish the shadow Secretary of State had the courage to say that, rather than repeating a uniformly gloomy picture that is not true.

Barbara Keeley: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Select Committee on Health’s report on the matter. The data were completely conflicted. Again and again, individuals from the NHS told us that social care was the problem, as Sir Bruce Keogh, whom I quoted earlier, said to me just a few weeks ago. Our report said that NHS England should sort this out. There are figures that the right hon. Gentleman could quote and figures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) could quote, and we should not be confused about this.

Paul Burstow: I entirely agree that if there is any doubt about the figures, it needs to be resolved, but there seems to be a disconnect between what people think is happening and what the figures show. I have been to events at which clinicians have said that the problem is the local social services, but when they are shown the figures they are surprised. Perhaps that is why we need, as the hon. Lady says, to ensure that there is an agreed way in which such things are reported, which is what, I think, was put in place by the previous Labour Government. These figures have been collected for a long time, and they have consistently shown that social care is not the principal driver of delayed discharges.

Anne Main: I am sorry to have missed the beginning of my right hon. Friend’s speech, but as he knows there is a big lobby going on. That was the point I was trying to make to the Secretary of State, although obviously I did not make it very well. Under the previous Government, West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust had a significant number of delayed discharges—although that is coming right down now—and the figures were not on the books, so to speak, thanks to a very creative form of accounting. It is nuanced and there have been problems on all sides. To try to paint it as one-sided is totally wrong and it certainly is not a new phenomenon; it has been going on for a considerable time.

Paul Burstow: That is absolutely right. For example, in continuing health care there is often a great deal of contestability that leads to discharge delays, but they are NHS-caused delays. I am not saying that the NHS should be blamed any more than social services, but I want some honesty about how the figures are presented as they do not bear close scrutiny in the argument made by the right hon. Member for Leigh. His solution is simplistic, too. It is good to have a debate about competition policy—I remember Labour Ministers trumpeting the introduction of the first competition policies in the NHS and the establishment of the competition and collaboration committee in the Department of Health. Labour established those policies.
	Monitor’s role is to protect the interests of patients—that is what it says in the Health and Social Care Act 2012—not to promote competition. The idea that we can solve the problem by sweeping away Monitor opens the doors to competition red in tooth and claw. Of course, the Competition Act 1998, the EU’s competition legislation
	and procurement law would still apply without any of the fetters, barriers or protections that Monitor can and should be providing in its role as the regulator of competition in the NHS.

Kevin Barron: It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman says that, because he knows from his time on the Health Committee that European competition law is not used in any health care system across the European Union.

Paul Burstow: The problem is that EU competition law was brought into our law through the 1998 Act. That was what opened this particular box, and by bringing Monitor into the picture and giving it the mission of protecting the interests of patients, we put that issue back in its box—and the right hon. Member for Leigh would sweep that away.

Andy Burnham: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is perfect—[Interruption.] It was his Act; he was a Minister. I quoted him in my speech as saying that it now needs to be amended. Will he be straight with the House this afternoon: does it need to be amended to remove the role of the OFT?

Paul Burstow: The right hon. Gentleman must be reading my notes as that was my very next point. One thing about our politics is that it is very difficult for people to admit their mistakes, so let me do just that today. I regret that we included in the 2012 Act a provision for the OFT to deal with the specific issue of mergers. At the time, the argument was that the OFT had the expertise, but it clearly did not. Monitor should have that role. I want to address that issue either through agreement—the Secretary of State has suggested how that might happen—or by amending the legislation. That is my view based on how things have developed over time, and one cannot be more straightforward than that.

Andy Burnham: Fair enough.

Paul Burstow: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
	The right hon. Gentleman spoke about Hinchingbrooke hospital and the franchising arrangement. The process started and was two thirds of the way through by the time the previous Government left office. There were only private sector providers in the competition when the previous Government left office—

Andy Burnham: indicated dissent.

Paul Burstow: I hope the right hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to go and see what is happening at Hinchingbrooke, because it is doing fantastically well. It is being led by clinicians and is making a huge difference as a result. We should take heart from that.
	Let me end by drawing out one point about A and E pressures. The situation is complex and driven by a multifactoral set of problems. There are seasonal changes, with high-volume, less complex A and E attendance in the spring and summer, and a pattern of fewer but more complex cases in the autumn and winter that often drive up admissions. It is also important to note that it is a
	question not just of an ageing society but of a rise in co-morbidity, which drives the pressures in our A and E departments. There are also changes in behaviour as people regard A and E as the first point of access for any ailment, driven by the fact that nine out of 10 GPs opted out.
	In conclusion, the motion is flawed and does not celebrate the successes of this Government, not least in driving integration in a way that the previous Administration failed to do. For that reason and many others besides, it should not be supported and the Government amendment should be supported instead.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I remind Members who wish to speak that I asked each Member to take eight minutes including interventions and without compensating for the time lost so that we could fit everybody in. We are in danger of being unable to fit everybody in because people are running over their time, so I remind Members to help each other out. If they are unable to, we might need a time limit, but I think we should be able to avoid that.

Barbara Keeley: The Health Committee has held a number of inquiries into urgent and emergency services. The College of Emergency Medicine told us in its evidence that increased demand, combined with a more complex case mix, was the driver that had led to departments struggling to meet the four-hour target. We were told that type 1 emergency departments, which offer a consultant-led 24-hour service with full resuscitation facilities, had
	“reached the limits of their compensatory capacity.”
	We heard that there were
	“more people out of hours, more after midnight, more ambulance and more elderly.”
	I checked that with the chief executive of Salford Royal hospital and have checked again in the past 24 hours. He told me that the trends that I first reported in our debate last summer have continued at the hospital. There are now 14 more ambulance arrivals each day—reflecting sicker patients, not self-referrals—which is an increase on last summer. There has been a 13% increase in admissions for stays lasting longer than 72 hours, with a drop in shorter stays, a 31% increase in triages into the hospital’s resuscitation area, and an 11% increase in admissions into critical care. There is now a different mix of patients being admitted. The chief executive, Sir David Dalton, tells me that those trends now appear to be year-round, rather than a purely seasonal impact of winter pressures. He said—my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) might touch on this—that Salford Royal is also now experiencing additional pressures from north Trafford patients.
	I am concerned that the current crisis in A and E will continue, and indeed worsen, as a result of continued cuts to social care budgets. We have heard a certain amount of complacency from Ministers today about this winter. It has not yet been a hard one, and there is plenty of time for flu pandemics. Sandie Keene, the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, has warned that
	“it is absolutely clear that all the ingenuity and skill that we have brought to cushioning vulnerable people as far as possible from the effects of the economic circumstances cannot be stretched any further, and that some of the people we have responsibilities for may be affected by serious reductions in service—with more in the pipeline”.
	That is the really worrying point, because we are not even at the end of the cuts we have to make.
	As I have said before—I make no apology for mentioning it again—my local authority has already lost £100 million in funding since 2010, and it will lose another £75 million by 2016. It has had to cut its adult social care budget by 20%. This is a crunch year for us, because we have had to change our eligibility criteria from “moderate” to “substantial”, which is a difficult cut to make. About 1,000 people are predicted to lose their council-funded care packages, and another 400 who would have qualified under the “moderate” eligibility criteria will not now do so.
	The work to reassess those people is ongoing, but Sir David Dalton tells me that
	“following the initial scoping there is clearly a risk of more frequent attendances, increased admissions and a prolonged length of stay for this cohort of patients.”
	Salford Royal is having to review the possible increased work load for community nursing teams, especially the district nurses, who the chief executive feels
	“may need to pick up increased duties for these patients.”
	It is clear that there is a straightforward shift: as those people in Salford lose their care packages, the hospital is having to pick it up.
	Nationally, the number of people over 65 receiving publicly funded care has fallen from 1.2 million to fewer than 1 million. All across the country there has been a serious fall in the number of older people receiving publicly funded care. Some of those who have lost that care will fund it themselves, but in other cases the work load will fall on unpaid family carers. We have been warned about that in surveys. Carers UK found that 55% of carers are caring for someone who has been admitted to emergency hospital services in the last three years, and a significant number of them said that additional support could have prevented the emergency admission.
	We also know—this is a worry for those who are concerned about carers—that full-time carers are themselves more than twice as likely to be in poor health as people without caring responsibilities. The Care Bill has not yet completed its passage through the House, but it does not do enough to support full-time carers, particularly given the funding situation for social care. Carers are the first line in prevention, so properly identifying and supporting them can prevent an escalation in demand. However, identification of carers is not happening and the Care Bill does not do enough to change that.
	Macmillan Cancer Support has found that 70% of carers of people with cancer come into contact with health professionals. GPs and hospital doctors should identify carers and signpost them to information and advice, but in many cases they do not. Many hon. Members will encounter such people in their casework. The Care Bill gives a carer a right to a local authority carer’s assessment, but that is meaningless for a carer who has no contact with a local authority. In fact, 1,000 fewer families this year will have that constant contact with, and support from, their local authority.
	Carers UK yesterday published a report on caring and family finances, which found that almost half of carers are cutting back on food and heating and that over half have reported that money worries are starting to take a toll on their health. The report quotes one carer:
	“With the cuts I have cut down to eating one meal a day so I can ensure my husband has enough food to keep him well.”
	We know that the caring that unpaid carers do saves our economy billions of pounds every year, but we have to face the fact that they are choosing between heating and eating, and in some cases eating only one meal a day. As was noted earlier, there is also the lack of funding to pay for prescriptions. Carers UK has warned—we should take note of this—that if this country’s 6.5 million carers are not supported, we will be pushed them to breaking point. In my authority, for example, if they are left unable to care, they will not be able to go to social care and will have to go straight to the NHS.
	We know that the NHS is struggling in the wake of unnecessary reforms that redirected £3 billion from the front line. The cost of living crisis is clearly starting to have an impact. This is cold homes week, and it is estimated that people suffering from the cold costs the NHS an extra £1.36 billion a year, and that figure might continue to rise with fuel bills.
	Last Friday I met a couple in their 50s who said that they could afford to have their heating on for only an hour a day—last Friday was absolutely freezing, as Thursday had been. It is interesting to reflect on how we could maintain our health if we could afford to have the heating on for only an hour a day. Since 2010, 145,000 more older people have had to receive hospital treatment for cold-related illnesses and respiratory or circulatory diseases, which is a real worry.
	On NHS staffing, the Health Committee inquiry highlighted the fact that only one in five emergency departments have the right level of consultant cover for 16 hours a day. That worrying situation is not set to improve because, despite increased recruitment, very few higher trainee posts in emergency medicine are being filled—156 out of 193 such posts were left unfilled in the latest recruitment round. Even Salford Royal, which is an excellent hospital, is experiencing recruitment difficulties. I understand that it still has 2.3 full-time vacant posts, against the eight consultant posts it should have in emergency medicine. That is a good record compared with 52% of posts that are vacant in most hospitals.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said earlier, the president of the College of Emergency Medicine feels that we are suffering “decision-making paralysis” across the NHS. The college said recently that it felt that its position was akin to that of
	“John the Baptist crying in the wilderness”.
	It is a great pity that the warnings it made three years ago about understaffing were overlooked while attention was focused on NHS restructuring. I do not think that the recruitment drive the Secretary of State keeps talking about is the answer, because it will not address the high drop-out rate. We have to recognise that the increasing pressure on A and E will remain a strong disincentive to a career in emergency medicine.
	In conclusion, the Government’s unnecessary and costly NHS reforms, combined with the swingeing cuts to social care budgets, are responsible for the crisis, and accident and emergency departments have been left to try to pick up the pieces. I support the motion and urge other Members to do the same.

Therese Coffey: It is always a pleasure to speak about the NHS in this House and to recognise the hard-working staff who do their best for their patients and our constituents. I am pleased that the shadow Secretary of State is still in his place. I recognise that the NHS is important to him, but I strongly suggest that his accusation that Government Members are complacent is far from the truth, as the evidence of nearly four years in government shows.
	The right hon. Gentleman is rightly proud, as are other Labour Members, of increased spending on the NHS during their 13 years in government, but he is at risk of seeing that as the only way of helping patients. My concern is that that led to a complacent attitude under Labour that simply putting in more money would solve everything, with the result that it missed the opportunity to make significant reforms.
	Instead, over the past 18 months in particular, the Care Quality Commission has been truly strengthened. There is now no concern about opening the lid on the problems that we know exist in parts of our NHS. Many Members will bring such examples, from our casework, to the House today. That is why I am proud that we have strengthened the CQC through an independent inspector of hospitals. At times, I have criticised the CQC for being too timid and for not being prepared to be more public about its concerns and to go in and act. However, the short-notice inspections are important in ensuring that patients feel confident that they will get not only excellent treatment, as they largely do, but the care that they deserve when they are under the custodianship of the NHS.
	I cannot see how Government Members are being complacent in any way, but another element of complacency on the part of the Opposition crept in with the suggestion that targets were the right thing. We all know that if we do not measure something it often does not get done. With regard to ambulance services, however, while the regional targets of 75% of patients being covered within eight minutes of red 1 calls may well have been met in most of the country, that did not show what was actually happening on the ground. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), have been vocal for a long time in pressing the case for not just hitting a regional target, but focusing on individual patients. Complacency set in whereby it was thought that as long as we were hitting our regional target everything was fine, yet we knew, as MPs, that everything was certainly not fine.
	In the east of England, resources were focused on the main urban centres. People out in the countryside—not even that isolated, but in smaller towns or villages—were almost ignored because they did not help the centre to hit its regional target. If they had broken their hip, it almost did not matter that they were lying on the floor for four hours waiting for somebody to come, because it was not a life-threatening injury. The hon. Member for
	Warrington North (Helen Jones), who is no longer in her place, referred to the north-west ambulance service. I am proud that Members of Parliament from across the east of England—I particularly mention my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel)—have worked together to hold our ambulance service to account, with the outcome that we managed to get its entire board replaced. That was a very difficult thing to do, especially when were at times accused of attacking and undermining the NHS whereas in fact, far from showing complacency, individual MPs were working together to make sure that patients came first, not some artificial target that was bad for patients.
	I wanted to say thank you to the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who is sadly no longer in her place on the Opposition Front Bench, because she put me in contact with Anthony Marsh, who was chief executive of the west midlands ambulance service and is now, thanks to action by this Government, chief executive of the east of England ambulance service. During his very short tenure, he has already been able to bring a new sense of urgency and a recognition that staff are not coming through the pipeline quickly enough, and he is doing something about that. I am confident that when we meet him next week, we will be able to understand his plans even further.
	One of the reasons I was accused of Gove-itis earlier is that it frustrates me that Members of Parliament are accused of complacency when in fact they are working hard to help their constituents. Far from being complacent, we have approached this in a consistent way. I recommend to MPs from other parts of the country that instead of just waiting for someone in Whitehall to act on these issues, and mocking MPs who say they are working hard to press their case and hold their local board to account, they should get on and do it, not just wait for others to do so. I give credit to NHS England. At times, getting it to recognise the real problems that we were facing on behalf of our constituents felt like wading through treacle, but it has finally got the message, and together we are starting to turn the situation around.
	We have heard about aspects of hospital provision. I do not wish to go on for too much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is important that everyone who wants to have their say can do so. In fact, I am putting in a bit of a bid for an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall about NHS funding and the elderly population. [Interruption.] Well, if you don’t ask, you don’t get. I listen to patients in my area who have 200-mile-round trips to get to the specialist hospitals. We are concerned about a potential reconfiguration of stroke services that would make it physically impossible for patients to be seen within 60 minutes of the 999 call being made. As a consequence, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State will know, we have been pressing the case for more funding to be given to areas of rural sparsity in light of the fact that geography matters in trying to deal with such situations.
	I recognise that Labour Members feel strongly about the NHS, but so do Government Members; it is a universal thing. As we continue to support the NHS, there is no way that we can ever be accused of complacency. The reality is that we are dealing with the issues,
	not putting a lid on the problems. We have had the Francis inquiry and we continue to work on many of its recommendations. I am therefore very happy to support the Government’s amendment.

Kate Green: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and to speak in this debate.
	I have spoken several times about the experience in my area, where in recent months we have been undergoing a major reconfiguration of hospital services, particularly accident and emergency. I have to report that, whatever the metrics or the resourcing may be demonstrating, the patient experience as reported to me, particularly regarding our A and E departments at Manchester Royal infirmary and at Wythenshawe hospital, is that there is a great deal of pressure and strain in the system. People are reporting long waits in very pressured environments, and there is a genuine sense of unhappiness about the atmosphere in which they feel emergency care is being provided because of the stretched services. A whole range of pressures are coinciding. There is rising demand due to some of the social reasons that right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, including individuals’ behaviour; public health crises; pressures on resourcing in the NHS; and the pressures brought about by reconfiguration itself. It is hard to disentangle which of those different pressures is contributing to so much stress in the system.
	I would like to highlight a few key points that I hope the Minister will take on board. There is no doubt that more change is coming in the NHS and we are learning quite a lot in my area as we go along. First, the reconfiguration of accident and emergency services and their downgrading to an urgent care centre at Trafford general hospital has immediately been followed by rising numbers at neighbouring A and E departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned the huge rise, in percentage terms, at Salford Royal hospital. That is also the case at Wythenshawe, in particular, as we are discovering on the doorsteps in Wythenshawe and Sale East. My colleague Mike Kane, who I hope will very soon be an hon. Friend in this House, has been talking to hundreds of local people, and we know that Wythenshawe hospital is experiencing very great pressure.
	On 10 out of 13 days in January, Manchester Royal infirmary’s A and E department failed to meet the four-hour waiting time target, as did Wythenshawe on 11 out of 13 days, and four Manchester trusts failed to meet the target in quarter 3. It is difficult to disentangle whether that is attributable wholly or in part to the reconfiguration of services. None the less, there are real pressures in our A and E departments in Greater Manchester. Particularly in the immediate aftermath of the reconfiguration at Trafford, there have been reports of long ambulance queues, especially at Wythenshawe. That is not surprising, because the reconfiguration has inevitably created significant numbers of additional ambulance journeys as people are presenting at what is now an urgent care centre but may have to be transferred elsewhere for specialist care. I understand that there have been 100 extra ambulance journeys in the immediate aftermath of the reconfiguration. People are also going to what are, in effect, their own places. I think that is
	understandable, because, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—who is no longer in his place—has said, the picture is confusing.
	Local road signs used to say, “A&E”, but now they say, “A&E not 24 hours”, following the reconfiguration at Trafford. To be frank, that is an utterly meaningless piece of information for somebody driving to an A and E department, because it gives them no idea of when during those 24 hours the service will not be open. There is also real confusion about what is or is not available at the urgent care centre and whether it is safe to go there.
	Local people tell me that the reason they do not go to Trafford is that they do not believe they are any longer allowed to go there. That was not the clinicians’ planning assumption when the urgent care centre was introduced, but that is what patients believe. As the hon. Member for Stafford said—Sir Bruce Keogh has put his finger on this, too—it is really important that patients are given clarity about what is available, where to go and when. We have to pay much more attention to educating the public about that.
	Another difficulty that we discovered very quickly is that the decision tree used by North West ambulance service has resulted in its taking cases to Wythenshawe and to Salford Royal and Manchester Royal infirmary which should, under the original plan, have gone to Trafford urgent care centre. We are learning a lot from what is going on in the aftermath of the reconfiguration. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the lessons will be taken on board and distributed.
	Pressure is also being created in a wider context. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) mentioned in particular the pressure of rising poverty, which is, without question, leading to higher levels of need and people presenting at our hospitals. The number of hospital admittances as a result of malnutrition nearly doubled—it went up from 3,161 to 5,499—between 2008-09 and 2011-12. They did not all present at A and E, but they did all present at a hospital and that is of real concern.

Andy Burnham: Was as my hon. Friend as surprised as I was at some of the sneering from Government Members when she intervened on me to point out that the number of malnutrition cases has gone up significantly? All we got from them was sneering abuse, but the facts speak for themselves.

Kate Green: When the Manchester Evening News published a report about the shocking rise in malnutrition in our region, people were horrified and commented voluntarily on how disgraceful and shameful it was that, in such a rich economy, we could be in such a situation. There is no doubt that that is partly because of pressure on family incomes.
	I want to highlight the position of disabled people in particular, who face extra costs for special diets, aids and adaptations, prescription charges and continence pads. All of those costs have to be met by disability benefits that are of dwindling value. There is also further pressure on the services on which they rely, including day services, respite care, access to mobility aids and care at home, which is under great pressure because of social care budget cuts.
	In conclusion, against a backdrop of great pressure—some of it to do with changes to the NHS, some with rising remand and some with wider environmental factors—change and further reconfiguration may be necessary, but it is very difficult to do it. I want to finish by making three points to the Minister about what we are learning from the situation in Trafford, where we are integrating health and social care. First, it is not a quick fix. Secondly, it is not possible to remove services from our hospitals before the care and provision is available in the community—that is of real concern at a time when budgets are pressed. Thirdly, there is a huge piece of work to be done—the Government have not embarked on it—on educating the public and driving up public understanding. The public in my local area are extremely confused about what the NHS is able to provide to them and where they should go to get it. I am sure we are not unique. The situation is undoubtedly creating additional pressure for hospitals and other NHS providers, and I hope the Minister and his colleagues will address it.

Priti Patel: I apologise to both Front Benchers for missing the opening statements due to a commitment I had at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak.
	I want to discuss problems with the NHS in my locality. My constituents have been affected by a number of difficulties in the NHS in recent years, predominantly down to the legacy and failings of the previous Labour Government, particularly the deficit of NHS local health care provision. Mid Essex has suffered as a result of the bloated bureaucracy of the primary care trusts and strategic health authority, which took money away from front-line care and patients. That is Labour’s legacy.
	To put that in context, between 1997 and 2009 the number of managers and senior managers in the East of England strategic health authority more than doubled from 1,300 to well over 2,700. The number just kept increasing. The worst case involved Mid Essex PCT—I was so thrilled when PCTs were dismantled—and its predecessor trusts, whereby between 2001 and 2009 the number of managers and senior managers soared from 10 to 102, while the proportion of administrative staff working in the PCT itself doubled from 17% to 33%. That money should have gone to front-line patients in Witham and Mid Essex. That is the legacy we are trying to overcome.
	When this Government came to office, those two PCTs were spending a combined total of £25 million on management costs alone, which is simply shocking and appalling. That is why the reforms are not just welcome, but vital to Mid Essex and my constituency: money can now be spent on providing care and investing in the health and care services that my constituents and patients desperately need. The actions taken by this Government mean that more of the record levels of spending on the NHS—which the Government are committed to and which the Opposition opposed—will be spent on patients in my constituency, rather than on administrators, managers and bureaucrats.
	One of the most damaging aspects of Labour’s legacy in my constituency is the incredible health deficit in Witham town. Witham is a growing town and I am very
	proud of it—it is incredible. Despite the NHS deficits we have faced, our patients have campaigned and I have worked alongside them. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has been clear and consistent in making the point that this is about campaigning together, on a united front at a local level, to make the case for reform and change.
	The town’s population is set to grow by more than 11% over the next decade, yet we have a chronic shortage of GPs and health services. That is well documented and I have raised the issue in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall on a number of occasions.

Anne Main: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that Labour Members have made no apology for the fact that GPs were allowed to opt out of out-of-hours services? That resulted in many more people presenting themselves at A and E simply because they were unaware of where they could go. Surely Labour should have foreseen that that would happen when it made dramatic changes to GP contracts.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a challenge we all face, particularly in rural constituencies. That deficit needs to be addressed.
	There are about 2,200 patients per GP in Witham town, compared with the national average of 1,500. Patients would also like to see more out-patient services delivered locally in the community, rather than have to travel to Braintree, Chelmsford or Colchester. Colchester and Chelmsford both have hospitals that are undergoing major reviews at present. The challenge we face is to bring in new services to serve our expanding town. The prospects of achieving that objective are enhanced by the fact that this Government are putting record sums into the NHS and by the dialogue at community level between the town council and NHS England. I commend both, but specifically Witham town council for its support, and particularly Andrew Pike of NHS England and his team for working closely with me to examine the options, despite significant pressures and resistance in some quarters.
	I know that we can count on the encouragement of Ministers, who have listened and been incredibly supportive. That brings me back to the fundamental point that if the Labour party, when it was in government, had bothered to take the issue seriously, more progress could have been made. The issue is of course about the allocation of resources: we need less on management and bureaucracy, and more on front-line patient care.
	Another very significant health care concern for my constituents is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal about the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust. It has been a disaster, as the Secretary of State and Health Ministers are well aware. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has been part of our campaign. He was assiduous in his support of us all in pushing for and achieving the resignation of board members last year, and in relation to the trust’s poor performance in getting ambulances to patients efficiently and on time, rather than having four-hour waiting times and some deaths. We must not forget that deaths and casualties have resulted from that neglect.
	I welcome Ministers’ involvement and support and, by contrast, we have now seen changes. The previous members of the trust’s board, many of whom, including a Labour councillor, were appointed under the previous Labour Government, ought to have provided strategic leadership—this is all about leadership—but they left the trust in an appalling state, under-staffed, poorly resourced and ill-equipped. They did not scrutinise the management of the trust, but left a serious black hole in its finances and a shortage of paramedics and ambulances that has caused my constituents and patients throughout the region to suffer unnecessarily.
	As the House has heard, the trust is now led by Dr Anthony Marsh, and it is on a massive recruitment drive to bring in the paramedic numbers it needs to serve my constituents and the rest of the region. I commend him, because he is working incredibly hard: we are climbing Everest to deal with the legacy we were left. Collectively, local MPs are supporting him in his task to repair the damage to the structures left to us, including in relation to the formation of the trust, because in effect we inherited an appalling and devastating legacy.
	It is quite clear from our time in government that if such problems had arisen under the previous regime, they would have been swept under the carpet. We have seen with the scandal of Mid Staffs and other trusts, to which the Labour party turned a blind eye, that there is no doubt that Labour closed its eyes and completely ignored the fact that patient care was neglected and the overall cost in lives, which is appalling. I therefore welcome the commitment from our Health Secretary and the Government to support us not only in facing the challenges, but in bringing transparency and shining a light on the NHS, which is vital.
	To make one other point, the teams in our ambulance trust have been working so hard. We really commend and praise the front-line teams, because they have had an appalling time. We are now improving services for my constituents, which, frankly, was not possible under the previous Labour Government.

Jim Shannon: Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will certainly leave sufficient time for the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) to follow me.
	It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. When it comes to the NHS, the nub of the matter is the same for both Government Members and Opposition Members. We have a real pride and interest in it, and we want it to do well. Over our years in this world, we and our families have all been recipients of its services, so it is very important.
	The issue is a UK-wide one. Recently in Northern Ireland, some tough decisions have had to be made to close some A and E departments at particular times, and there have certainly been bumps in that process and better preparation might have prevented those problems. Such a decision was taken by the chief executive of the trust in my Down district council area. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and I had an opportunity to meet the chief executive to discuss the issue and put forward our constituents’ viewpoint, but our opinion was not met favourably. The chief executive felt that
	there was no other option, and that other hospitals in the area could cope with the additional pressures. That decision has come under close scrutiny and review, and the savings or outcomes are not yet fully known, but the decision was taken and it stands.
	The thrust of this debate is about improving patient care. The Government amendment to the Opposition motion mentions
	“compassionate care, integration…and patient safety.”
	We could combine the wording of both the motion and amendment and look for the same thing, and it is important to do so.
	The NHS is one of the things that we can most be proud of in the UK—a system by which all people are entitled to a high level of care at no cost other than their tax and national insurance contributions. However, no matter how much money is spent in the Health Department, there is always a need for more. The portfolio of a Health Minister or Secretary of State is not one that I would take on for, as we used to say, all of the tea in china, and that is a lot of tea. I take my hat off to my colleague Edwin Poots at home, and all those who have to make tough decisions. I sometimes feel that I could not make such decisions, but I understand why they have to do so.
	In preparation for this debate I considered the differences between how A and Es are run and the different quality of care in A and Es in different areas. In delving into the subject, I came across the last three words of the Opposition motion, which are “improving patient care”. I was shocked by a briefing I received from Macmillan Cancer Support, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). Macmillan is very close to my heart, as I believe it is to many in the Chamber, because of the issues it deals with. I was left with no option but to use this opportunity to highlight the care of the cancer sufferers and survivors, whom we all know.
	According to Macmillan Cancer Support, between 2015 and 2020 the number of people living with or beyond cancer in the UK will rise from 2.5 million to 3 million. By 2020, almost half the people living in the UK will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. Just this week, I had an opportunity to go to the Backbench Business Committee—I was seeking a debate on another issue—and the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) asked for a debate on cancer. The figures and headlines that we have seen this week indicate that cancer is a time bomb. It is frightening stuff. It used to be said that one in three people would be intimately affected by cancer, with a diagnosis for either themselves or an immediate family member; now that is changing to a cancer diagnosis for one in every two people.
	In the run-up to that, we must certainly get our ducks in a line—if I may use such terminology—to ensure that we are ready, and that patient care will be of top quality, no matter what people’s postcode. The fact is that although our palliative care is second to none and there have been improvements in diagnosis rates, the UK is not to the fore in survival rates. Given that we face one in every two people having a cancer diagnosis in the very near future, that needs to change and to become a priority. If we can deal with a diagnosis early, we can improve survival rates. That is what we should all try to achieve.
	Macmillan highlighted that a recent study on cancer survival rates in 29 countries in Europe—the Eurocare-5 research—has shown that the UK continues to lag behind other European countries. Macmillan is pleased to learn that the UK five-year survival rates for melanoma are 85% compared with the European average of 83%.

Bob Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Shannon: I am happy to give way, although I am mindful of the time.

Bob Stewart: I am a man. One of the problems with being a man is cowardice. The cancer survival rates would increase hugely if people like me would man up and get themselves checked out more often than they do. I am pointing the finger at myself.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman is correct in respect of prostate cancer. Medical organisations are also trying to highlight that problem.
	Despite the improvement, I am concerned that the overall survival rates for nine out of 10 common cancers are lower than the European average. We have low survival rates for kidney, stomach, ovarian and colon cancers, and intermediate survival rates for rectum, breast and prostate cancers, cutaneous melanoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Furthermore, the UK has one of the lowest survival rates in Europe for elderly patients. One reason for the rise in cancer rates is that people are living longer. Given that we have an ageing population, it is essential for the Government and the NHS to prioritise cancer care and early diagnosis.
	Both the motion and the amendment refer to an integrated system. This week, we had the climax of the Committee stage of the Care Bill. The Minister who is responding to this debate said that he had visited Northern Ireland to see how our integrated care system works. The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who was here earlier, expressed a wish to come to Northern Ireland to see how that system works. I hope to facilitate that for her so that the Opposition can understand the system that we have back home. We must have early diagnosis. That relies on patients informing their GPs of their symptoms, but also on the correct referrals being made and tests carried out when patients present at A and E departments. That should be considered when there is any shift around in care for those in A and E. If somebody is sent home with painkillers and told to make an appointment with their GP, how does that link up to the integrated system?
	As I stated at the beginning of my comments, no matter how much money is allocated to the Department of Health, it will never be enough to meet the needs. For that reason, the Department is tasked with making savings. I understand that that is essential, but it is also important that the care that people receive through the NHS is second to none. There is a way of balancing those demands. Tough decisions need to be made and changes must be put in place, but the priorities must be clear. I ask for cancer care, including early diagnosis and support services, to be prioritised. I hope that everyone agrees that the most important words in the motion are “improving patient care”. On that, I think the House can unite.

Valerie Vaz: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for being so concise in his remarks. It is always a pleasure to follow him.
	This debate takes place against a background of confusion and contradiction in the NHS. I hope that we will not end up with a national health disservice. We read all the documents and hear all the announcements about efficiency savings, but we still have not heard the lesson that people and patients should be at the heart of the NHS.
	Many of the policy makers in the health service who appeared before the Health Committee warned us that there was not much detail in the lead-up to the Health and Social Care Act 2012. There was no pre-legislative scrutiny and then there was a pause. Not for the first time, the Government rushed to get legislation through without proper scrutiny and without an electoral mandate.
	That played into the hands of the people who think that this Government and this country are up for sale to the highest bidder, and that there is no commitment to the people of this country. The Shard is an example. I understand that a number of its floors have been allocated to a private hospital. That is somewhere where pearly kings and queens cannot afford to live—they cannot even afford to go up to see the view.
	I am pleased to see a number of my colleagues on the Health Committee in the Chamber. We hear a lot of first-hand evidence. At a time when there are concerns about A and E, the Government seem to be intent on fiddling about with name changes. The NHS Commissioning Board is now known as NHS England. The integration transformation fund is now known as the better care fund. Interestingly, the Chancellor announced in the spending review in July that the £3.8 billion that has been allocated to the integration transformation fund—aka the better care fund—will only be available in 2015-16. However, the problem needs to be addressed now.
	That £3.8 billion is not extra money, but money that has been underspent in the NHS over the past few years. The underspend was £2.2 billion in 2013 and £1.4 billion in the previous year. When I asked the Secretary of State on 26 November last year why the underspend was not used for the NHS, he said that I should ask that question of Labour Ministers. I do not know whether he meant that I should do so in 2015. As I pointed out in an aside, which was not picked up by the Official Reporters, I am not a time traveller like Dr Who and was only elected in 2010. The rules of the House say that I should have had a proper response, rather than a dismissive one.
	Another issue is that people have been fired and then rehired. One in five of the 19,000 staff who have been given redundancy payments has returned to the NHS. That is more money that has been wasted and that should have been spent on patients. Primary care trusts were disbanded and then re-formed with a different name. Urgent care boards were set up—their name was then changed to working groups—to ensure that there was a forum to replace the PCTs. All of that has strained resources and made staff suffer, without any increase in pay. There is job creation. However, it is not in front-line services, but in the appointment of a chief
	inspector, which was not suggested by the Francis report, and of assistant chief inspectors. There may well be assistant assistant chief inspectors as well.
	The Select Committee heard evidence that the pay policy was significant in enabling the NHS to fill the gap, and NHS England said that, so far, around 25% of efficiency gains had come from pay. Ask A and E doctors who are struggling with working unsocial hours while locums without continuity in patient care are paid more, and they will say, “We need more staff; it is more money wasted on locums and agencies.” Perhaps Ministers should think about golden handcuffs for A and E staff, or the equivalent of an A and E special allowance to recognise the work of those doctors and staff in A and E. That might go some way towards ensuring that we keep them in their place and provide a safe service while doctors are trained. The College of Emergency Medicine has made repeated calls for such measures, and the emergency medicine taskforce made recommendations in 2011, yet we are still waiting for action.
	Many Members will know from their own hospitals that patients are suffering from delayed discharge. I have seen that first hand at Manor hospital after the closure of the accident and emergency department at Stafford hospital, where perhaps the relationship with local government is not at the same stage as it is with the local authority in Walsall, for example, and it takes longer to discharge patients. We are still waiting for the £4 million that is needed because we have had to take the strain of the closure at Stafford hospital.
	When giving evidence, Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, acknowledged that 20% to 25% of people in hospital should have been discharged. The Secretary of State said that himself, having spoken to chief executives of hospitals with approximately two wards full of people who could be discharged. Our House of Commons Library says there have been £1.8 billion of cuts in social care, but apparently, the boffins at NHS England have not “dissected out” why people are in hospital when they do not need to be there. They are working on it now—that serious work on delayed discharges has apparently only just started, despite there being a problem for some time.
	The urgent and emergency care review suggested that there should be emergency centres and major emergency centres. Sir Bruce said that NHS England was still listening to that proposal, but in a contradictory view, the Committee was told in the same evidence session that the clinical commissioning groups and other working groups are organising their networks to ensure that that is the outcome. Worse still, it was admitted that they have no intention of stopping any reconfigurations during that review.

Barbara Keeley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Valerie Vaz: I am sorry; I have no time. The Secretary of State wants to reconfigure but he does not want a national debate. He gives himself extra powers if he does not like what the courts and local people say. We need that debate. We need to tell people the truth based not on ideology but on fact, because it impacts on the type of medical work undertaken, and on how we train the next generation of doctors, nurses and health care professionals and what specialties there will be.
	The Nuffield Trust gave evidence to the Select Committee and said that people have made the easy savings and now they are running out. People’s memories are long. They have paid their taxes and expect the state to look after them when they need it; not to have to show their credit card as soon as they walk into an emergency centre, or a major emergency centre—whatever it will be called. People do not want prime NHS property in the centre of a city to be sold off so that they have to travel further to get to hospitals.
	Chaos, confusion, contradiction, and finally, from the Secretary of State an admission. In evidence last December he said that hospitals want to employ another 4,000 nurses compared with a year ago—an admission that 4,000 nurses have gone missing on his watch. The shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), made it clear that he does not want a further top-down reorganisation, and he started the conversation about whole-person care in the 21st century in a speech in January last year. Finally, Margaret Mead the anthropologist said:
	“Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world…indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has”
	We have in the staff, patients and people of this country a group of citizens who want to save their NHS.

Luciana Berger: This debate has laid bare the stark reality of the Government’s blinkered approach to the NHS. They are utterly complacent, hopelessly out of touch, and in complete denial not only about the scale of the crisis in A and E, but about how their changes to competition rules are making things even worse. They have nothing to offer patients and our hard-working doctors and nurses who tirelessly serve the NHS every single day, except smoke and mirrors to try to disguise the real causes.
	The Government have come to the House today celebrating “the strong performance”—it is in their amendment—of A and E. We have previously heard the Secretary of State insisting that the NHS is getting better. Almost 1 million patients have waited longer than four hours in the last year and Ministers are asking for a pat on the back. In the last 12 months, trolley waits are up; delayed discharges are up; 18-week waits are up; median and mean waiting times are up; emergency admissions are up; cancelled elective operations are up; cancelled urgent operations are up; and we have even seen patients being ferried to A and E in the back of police cars because no ambulances are available. It is not getting better, it is getting worse.
	If Ministers will not listen to us, perhaps they will listen to the experts and those on the front line. Today, the Foundation Trust Network has said that
	“pressure on the emergency care system is growing”.
	Ministers like to forget about the confusion and disorder that they have inflicted upon the NHS through their £3 billion top-down reorganisation, but they should acknowledge it. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) referred to it in detail, and it is the same top-down reorganisation that the Prime Minister promised would never happen on his watch.
	Let me remind the House of the warnings the Government were given at the time. In December, Dr Clifford Mann, president of the College of Emergency
	Medicine, revealed that he advised Ministers more than two years ago of a growing crisis in A and E. But his words were unheeded, leaving him and his colleagues feeling like
	“John the Baptist crying in the wilderness.”
	Dr Mann warned that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 would take up
	“a lot of time and resources from the medical royal colleges and other organisations.”
	He added that it
	“tied us all up in knots”—
	and created—
	“a lot of decision-making paralysis and stasis in the system”.
	While Dr Mann was warning of dangerously low staffing levels, spending on expensive locum doctors in A and E has rocketed by 60% in the past three years.
	The issue here is that too few doctors are picking emergency medicine in the final stages of their training, and who could blame them? It might take six years to train a doctor, but it only takes a second for the Government’s A and E crisis to deter a junior doctor from going into emergency medicine.
	The disruption the College of Emergency Medicine talks about is the disruption that the care Minister and his fellow Liberal Democrats allowed to happen when they nodded through the Health and Social Care Act, but we hear reports that his party is preparing to disown the NHS reorganisation and pretend it had nothing to do with them.
	The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) has admitted today that he got it wrong on competition. Why does the care Minister not own up and admit that he got this wrong, and that he should have listened to his own supporters and hundreds of thousands of people across the country who pleaded with him not to go through with it?
	The human cost of that mistake is clear for all to see. We can see it in the sheer number of people coming through the doors of A and E. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary pointed out at the beginning of this debate, attendances at A and E rose by 16,000 in the last three years of the Labour Government. In the first three years of this Government, they have rocketed by 633,000. Ministers may be pleased that the NHS is still standing after being subjected to this level of pressure, but the question they should ask is, why are so many more people coming to A and E in the first place?

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Lady mentioned the figure of 633,000 extra people presenting to A and E. In his opening speech, the shadow Health Secretary attributed a proportion of that number to people who had scurvy or rickets, as he tried to paint a Dickensian picture of national squalor. Now that she has had a few hours to check, can she tell me how many of those 633,000 people were diagnosed in A and E with either scurvy or rickets?

Luciana Berger: The hon. Gentleman may not have been here when we had the response from the Health Secretary. I will come on to the very points the hon. Gentleman raises in my speech, and I look forward to going through all the big issues we have with malnutrition in this country.
	I echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State about the sneering we have heard from Government Members this afternoon regarding some very serious issues. Any case of scurvy in 21st-century Britain is shameful.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) talked about the catalogue of coincidences that have led to so many more people going to A and E in the first place. I refer back to the increase of 16,000 in the last three years of the Labour Government, and of 633,000 in the first three years of this Government. Why is that? A quarter of walk-in centres have closed. NHS Direct was abolished. The guarantee of a GP appointment in 48 hours was scrapped, and extended GP opening hours were cut. As my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, £1.8 billion has been hacked from social care budgets, with thousands of people losing their care packages.

Angie Bray: Is the hon. Lady prepared to admit, just a teensy bit, that some of the added numbers going to A and E, which I agree are putting a lot of pressure on the departments, are partly to do with the change in GP contracts introduced by the Labour Government? That is driving people to A and E, because no GPs are working the hours that would allow them to see them

Luciana Berger: I just do not know what to say to that because it is so ridiculous. There was an increase of 16,000 in the last three years of the Labour Government, which has rocketed to 633,000 in the first three years of this Government. The gap in those figures is tremendous. The GP contract happened in 2004. When have we seen crises in A and E? Not under the Labour Government, but under this Government—the Tory-Liberal Democrat Government.
	What else has happened under this Government? We have seen the Health Secretary handing back £2.2 billion of underspend to the Treasury, 2,300 managers receiving six-figure pay outs and £1.4 billion siphoned off to pay for redundancies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh also raise the issue of the amount of money NHS trusts are now having to spend on expensive legal fees as a result of competition, introduced through the Health and Social Care Act. That goes to show that when it comes to our NHS, this Government know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
	As the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said, our elderly population is growing, but half a million fewer older people are receiving support compared to 10 years ago. That means more older people going to A and E because they cannot receive the care they need at home, and more older people stuck in hospital beds because there is no safe place to discharge them to.

Margot James: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Luciana Berger: I am not giving way because I have only three minutes left.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said earlier, the CQC recently reported that in the last year, more than half a million pensioners were admitted as
	an emergency to hospital with potentially avoidable conditions. There is another reason for that: it is now harder, not easier, to get a GP appointment under this Government. The Royal College of General Practitioners says that it will soon become the norm for people to wait a week or longer to see their GP. Just this week, I was contacted by a constituent whose partner was suffering from chest pains. They contacted the GP but could not get an appointment for eight days.
	This is what patients are having to endure right across the country, and it is being made even harder by the cost of living crisis hitting families all over Britain. People are having to eat less, and less healthily, and more than half a million people are being forced to turn to food banks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South described so poignantly, carers are having to make the choice between heating and eating. GPs are now asking patients when they last had a meal. It is no coincidence that, as food bank use has exploded, so have cases of malnutrition. There has been a 42% increase in malnutrition cases, and in 2012-13 more than 5,000 people were thus diagnosed in English hospitals. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston that that is a disgrace in 21st-century Britain.
	Doctors are now treating diseases we thought had all but disappeared. It is not just scurvy; rickets and vitamin deficiency are also on the rise. The Government have already given us the longest fall in living standards since the 1870s; we now have the Victorian diseases to match. They should be ashamed of every single case of these 19th-century diseases returning to 21st-century Britain.
	That is not all. With energy bills up by £300 and more children living in fuel poverty, is it any wonder that episodes of hypothermia have jumped by 40% in the past three years? We have seen a 29% increase in the number of excess winter deaths—31,000 deaths that by definition were entirely preventable—while new figures this week show a dramatic increase in the number of older people being admitted to A and E for cold-related illnesses. Furthermore, there have been 145,000 more cases of over-75s being treated in hospital for respiratory or circulatory diseases, compared with 2009-10.
	Ministers cannot resolve the crisis in our NHS. They know what is happening and that their policies are stoking the crisis, but they will not admit it. Only Labour can preserve, protect and progress our NHS. Our approach focuses on the patient, and it champions integration and collaboration, not competition, fragmentation and profit. We want a public, integrated NHS free at the point of use, and a whole-person approach that combines physical, mental and social care and helps to take the pressure off A and E. That is the principle behind our motion today, and I urge Members on both sides of the House to support it.

Norman Lamb: This afternoon, we have been presented with more of the same from the Labour party—the same scaremongering, the same misinformation, the same unwillingness to offer solutions. In short, it is the same old Labour party.
	Earlier this week, we heard from the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that the N was being wrenched off the NHS and that it was being sold to any company,
	but in reality only 6% of expenditure in the NHS goes to private providers. He talks about “market madness running riot through the NHS”, but listen to the facts: between 2006 and 2010, under Labour, total spending on the independent and private sector more than doubled; and between 2007-08 and 2010-11, under Labour, the number of operations conducted by the independent sector tripled. Since then, the figure has been around 46%.
	Labour is desperately trying to make the public believe that its skewed vision is the reality of the NHS, but this view is of course total nonsense, and I am happy to try to set the record straight.

Andy Burnham: I think the Minister was in the Chamber when his predecessor as care Minister held his hands up and admitted he got it wrong on competition when the Health and Social Care Bill went through the House. He has given hints to newspapers that he feels the same way. Would he care to step into the confessional and admit that the Liberal Democrats got it wrong on competition in the NHS?

Norman Lamb: I certainly think we have to avoid any repeat of what happened in Bournemouth. It is absolutely right for politicians to make that clear.
	The Labour party has tried to paint a picture of crisis in A and E. We know that there is more pressure on this vital service.

Margot James: My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about Labour’s record of inviting competition into the NHS when in office. The success of that record might have been the reason why Labour’s manifesto in 2010 promised:
	“Patients requiring elective care will have the right, in law, to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality at NHS costs”.

Norman Lamb: If I am right, that is called “any qualified provider” or “any willing provider”, which is exactly what this Government have pursued. Labour’s rewriting of history is breathtaking.
	There are 1.2 million more people visiting A and E than three years ago—the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) is right that the system is under pressure—but the increase in the number of A and E attendances peaked in 2009-10, under the previous Labour Government, when there was a year-on-year increase of 4.7%. Since then, the increase has been slower, and in the last full year for which data are available it was just 1.2%—clear evidence that the Government’s policies are starting to work.
	Doctors and nurses in our A and E departments up and down the country are doing brilliant work. Last week the NHS not only met the four-hour A and E target, but improved on its score from the same time last year. By contrast, in Labour-run Wales, A and E targets have not been met since 2009. The College of Emergency Medicine has said that Welsh A and E departments are on their knees, at the “point of meltdown”, and are putting patients at risk in Labour-run Wales. The college has complained of the ruthless
	“pursuit of targets and financial balance at the expense of quality of care.”
	In England, we have already met the target for more weeks this winter than when the right hon. Member for Leigh was Health Secretary. He missed his A and E target for two of his three quarters—was that a crisis in those days?—whereas we are seeing 2,000 more patients every day in under four hours than when Labour was in government. Ambulance performance is better than at the same time last year, meaning more ambulances arriving on scene in under eight minutes. Across the country, delays in handing over patients at A and E have dropped by a third compared with last year as a result of new sanctions, so we are not complacent.
	As my hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for Witham (Priti Patel) rightly said, we are sorting the problem. Opposition Members would like people to think that the NHS is going to ruin. They are so desperate—using the examples of scurvy and rickets. Of course, when that happens it is incredibly serious, but to suggest that that is part of the problem is outrageous. We heard the figures for scurvy, but there were 66 admissions for rickets in 2010-11 and 65 in 2012-13, so the figure has gone down. The truth is that we inherited a dysfunctional system that was crying out for reform—too many people ending up in hospital because of crises in their care, and far too much money spent on bureaucracy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witham made clear.
	For years I have argued the case for a different approach. We are making the essential changes and supporting NHS staff through difficult times. For this winter we are investing an additional £400 million in total—more than ever before. Having put plans in place earlier than ever before, with urgent care boards deciding what works in local areas, we are already seeing the benefit of those additional funds, with 320 more doctors, 1,400 more nurses, 1,200 other staff—occupational therapists, physiotherapists and so on—and more than 2,000 additional beds.
	Throughout this debate we have heard that urgent and emergency care needs to change, and rightly so, but may I remind the House that we are the Government who are making that change? We have asked Bruce Keogh to undertake a fundamental review of urgent and emergency care, but there are still far too many people ending up in hospital because of crises in care. There are too many people with long-term conditions who are still receiving unco-ordinated care. That is frustrating for the patient, it wastes money for the system and it can lead to worse health outcomes, as we fail to prevent such conditions from getting worse. It is our aim in government to join up services, fitting them around people’s lives and providing better care closer to home.
	The right hon. Member for Leigh seems to have had a recent damascene conversion to the case for integration. It is a shame that in the 13 years his party had in power, it did nothing significant to achieve it. In fact, many of the things it did and the decisions it made took the NHS in the wrong direction—on tariffs, on incentivising more activity in hospitals, on the disastrous private finance initiative and on the equally disastrous GP contract. I am proud to say that it is this Government who are taking the practical steps to make integration more commonplace throughout the country. We have selected 14 integrated care pioneers and we now have the £3.8 billion better care fund to achieve joined-up care throughout the country.
	The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman and the whole of the Opposition have systematically dismissed the real issue with empty rhetoric. They want better care in A and E, yet we have started the reforms that will revolutionise urgent and emergency care. They want the health and care services to become more integrated. We are leading the charge to make that happen, and to improve care and support for people throughout the country. They want us to change competition law. We have made it clearer and easier to understand, and have balanced that with the need for integration, and the need to help doctors to know how and when to use it.
	The Opposition are fighting their own shadow. Well, they can shadow-box all they want. They can waste time complaining rather than coming up with solutions, but this Government are actually tackling the issues, and making the changes to the health and care system that patients so desperately need.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 232, Noes 299.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 231.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the strong performance of NHS accident and emergency departments this winter; further notes that the average waiting time to be seen in A&E has more than halved since 2010; commends the hard work of NHS staff who are seeing more people and carrying out more operations every year since May 2010; notes that this has been supported by the Government’s decision to protect the NHS budget and to shift resources to frontline patient care, delivering 12,000 more clinical staff and 23,000 fewer administrators; welcomes changes to the GP contract which restore the personal link between doctors and their most vulnerable patients; welcomes the announcement of the Better Care Fund which designates £3.8 billion to join up health and care provision and the Integration Pioneers to provide better care closer to home; believes that clinicians are in the best position to make judgements about the most appropriate care for their patients; notes that rules on tendering are no different to the rules that applied to primary care trusts; and, a year on from the publication of the Francis Report, notes that the NHS is placing an increased emphasis on compassionate care, integration, transparency, safe staffing and patient safety.

Alison Seabeck: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members will have heard the concern during Prime Minister’s questions about the loss of the main line between London and Penzance. We understand locally that the rest of the Dawlish sea wall might go tonight. Has the Secretary of State for Transport given any indication that he intends to update the House on the current situation and on the measures that he is putting in place to ensure that the economy of the south-west is protected and the rail line kept open?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, although she and the House will appreciate that it is not a point to be dealt with by the Chair at this moment. I have received no indication that the Secretary of State for Transport intends to come to the House today, but the hon. Lady has ingeniously used the moment to draw attention to a serious matter that is, I am sure, appreciated as such by the Ministers concerned. I am certain that her point, albeit that it is not a point of order, will be noted by those by whom it ought to be noted.

Job Insecurity

Chuka Umunna: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that insecurity at work has increased under this Government, compounding the cost of living crisis facing families; further believes that the Government’s policies have made life less secure for people at work by watering down their rights, including protections against unfair dismissal and by abandoning an evidence-based approach to health and safety; notes that the number of employees working part-time who want to work full-time has grown by over 350,000 since the Government took office to over 1.4 million, alongside a marked rise in zero-hours contracts; recognises that insecure jobs add to pressure on the social security budget by making it harder for people to buy a home or save for their own pension; calls on the Government to reverse the trend of rising insecurity at work by reforming zero-hours contracts so they are not exploitative, addressing false self-employment by closing loopholes which allow it to take place, scrapping the failed ‘shares for rights’ scheme, strengthening and properly enforcing the National Minimum Wage, including by increasing fines to £50,000 and giving local authorities enforcement powers, and incentivising employers to pay a Living Wage through ‘make work pay’ contracts; and further calls on the Government to adopt a proper industrial strategy to help create more high-skilled, better paid jobs so the UK can earn its way out of the cost of living crisis with stronger and better-balanced growth.
	It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to serve for the first time under your chairship. I move the motion at a time when our country’s economy has thankfully returned to some growth after three years—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Government Members will not be “Hear, hear-ing” later on, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are not out of the woods yet. In my constituency, the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance has fallen over the past 12 months and I welcome that, but the number of young people claiming JSA for more than 12 months in Streatham has increased by 75% and the number of adults claiming JSA for more than two years is five times what it was in May 2010. That is a tragedy for them and their families; they are not patting the Chancellor on the back.
	We are all too aware that the fall in the headline rate of unemployment in some areas, such as mine, is not matched across the country. In the north-east and the south-west, for example, unemployment is up compared with this time last year. It might surprise people to learn that in London our unemployment rate is 8.1% compared with a national average of 7.1%. For those of our constituents who are in work, living standards have never before been under so much strain. A living standards crisis has impacted on households all over the country, which is why the shape and nature of growth matter. Will the rewards from growth deliver better living standards and security for the people we represent?

Nadine Dorries: The hon. Gentleman is incredibly generous to give way and I thought I might make an intervention to try to cheer him up a little. Center Parcs is bringing 1,700 jobs to my constituency in a project that has been on the table for long time—since I first became an MP nine years ago. It is happening now because Center Parcs has faith and confidence in the economy that means that it can go ahead with the project and create the jobs. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that many employers will follow suit and the picture will be much brighter.

Chuka Umunna: I shall come on to the point about the nature of the work and the jobs created. Of course it is a good thing for the hon. Lady’s constituents that there are more opportunities, but I shall return to that point.

Jim Cunningham: Although we always welcome any improvement in employment, the fact remains that the purchasing power of people out of work has dropped about 5%, and that mostly hits women.

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is right. It is worth recalling that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition first talked about the cost of living crisis and the squeezed middle, Members on the Government Benches and their supporters ridiculed the very notion, but the existence of that living standards crisis is now undeniable. Indeed, since my right hon. Friend first talked about the squeezed middle, in 2011, I think, the people who compile the Oxford English Dictionary named it their word of the year, despite the fact that it is two words.
	Words are one thing, but they are backed up by the reality of what we see in our communities. Ministers can do whatever jiggery-pokery they want with the figures, as the Chancellor did the other day when he claimed that the top decile of earners was the only decile that had lost out from his measures. In so doing, he miraculously forgot to take into account the huge tax cut he had given the top 1% at the same time as heaping a VAT rise on working families and taking away support from them.
	The average employee is earning substantially less than when this Government came to office—over £1,600 less a year. It is important to remember that on Wednesday 13 February last year—almost a year ago—the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions in this House pledged that people would be better off in 2015 than in 2010, and we will hold him to that. The head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who is often cited in all parts of the House, thinks differently. He said last month:
	“We will be able to say definitively—I’m pretty sure—that, come 2015, average household incomes will be lower than they were pre-recession and lower than they were in 2010.”

John Redwood: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that no one working for a trade union or a Labour council is on a zero-hours contract or is a part-timer who wants a full-time job?

Chuka Umunna: I will come on to zero-hours contracts shortly, if there is some patience on the Government Benches.
	This living standards crisis is not just one of rising costs and falling wages. It is one, too, of increasing insecurity at work. People in work today feel less secure and more pressurised at work than at any time in the past 20 years, according to the most recent UK skills and employment survey. Members on the Government Benches shake their heads. It was the Government’s own UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which co-funded that survey, that described what we now have as a “climate of fear”. More recent research carried out towards the end of last year found that the number of people feeling insecure at work had almost doubled
	since this Government came to office, with half the working population believing that the economic policies of this Government have made them less secure.
	There is a constant worry about whether people will be able to hold on to their jobs. There is a constant worry about whether they will be able to provide for themselves and their families—a continuing squeeze, yes, and an increasing amount of insecurity. That is the reality of life in this country in 2014.

Rushanara Ali: Does my hon. Friend agree that this insecurity particularly affects young people? Nearly a million of them—940,000—remain unemployed, and this Government have failed to get them into work and to deal with the insecurity and sense of frustration they feel about not being able to make a contribution to the economy.

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is right. Almost 1 million young people are still out of work and that is why we have said that we will introduce a compulsory job guarantee to ensure that young people who have been out of work for more than a year have a job.

Neil Carmichael: I am grateful for the opportunity to point out that in the past quarter manufacturing grew by 0.9% and in my constituency that translates into meaningful jobs. I took the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to Stroud last week to underline the value of apprenticeships at Delphi and so forth. Across my constituency overall employment in manufacturing has continued to rise and overall unemployment has continued to fall. Does the shadow Secretary of State recognise that that is a powerful statement of good government translating into economic success?

Chuka Umunna: I think that I have had this discussion with the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) elsewhere. Some will say, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, in the context of falling unemployment, that the main thing is that people should have a job and that, unemployment having rising for much of this Parliament, they should be grateful to have a job at all. Of course we would all prefer to see our constituents in work rather than out of it, but we have to be more ambitious for the people we represent. We want them to achieve their dreams and aspirations. We want them not only to have a job, but to have decent work that pays a wage they can live on and offers a decent level of security. For the Opposition, any old job will not do, because we believe that we must do better for the people we represent, and for the people we hope to represent after the next general election—those in the constituencies of current Government Members.

Jim Sheridan: On the question of whether any old job will do, my hon. Friend might be aware that 10 years ago today 23 Chinese cockle pickers lost their lives in Morecambe bay under the instruction of illegal gangmasters. There is clear evidence that the gangmasters have now moved into other sectors, such as construction and care. Is it not time we registered illegal gangmasters so that they cannot exploit employees and damage our indigenous work force?

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. We all remember those who lost their lives a decade ago, and our thoughts are with their families. Of course, that was why we set up the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and we believe that we should consider expanding its remit to include other sectors, construction being the obvious one.

Michael McCann: Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members will not be celebrating the proliferation of zero-hours contracts, which allow our young people, in particular, to be exploited by employers who want them to be at the other end of the telephone waiting to be told when to come to work but do not guarantee them any weekly hours?

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will move on to zero-hours contracts shortly.

Brian H Donohoe: Is it not also the case that people on the minimum wage who are contracted for perhaps 16 or 20 hours a week are having to work more than that, with employers exploiting them in that way? That is a major problem, and their employment is very insecure.

Chuka Umunna: That is right. Zero-hours contracts are perhaps most symptomatic of the increasing insecurity we are seeing in today’s workplace.

Andrew Gwynne: Other Members have mentioned the need for proper, decent employment rights in the workplace. Does my hon. Friend regret the fact that this Government seem to see protections in the workplace as burdensome regulation?

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is totally correct to raise that issue. Not only is it an issue of justice in the workplace, but it is also—[Interruption.] I have completely forgotten the point I was going to make—one of those moments. Ah, the thought has returned to me: it is also bad for the economy. If people are frightened out of their wits about whether they will retain their jobs, they will hardly go and spend money in our economy.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to another historical parallel that goes beyond the Morecambe bay tragedy? A few years ago we marked the centenary of the Tonypandy riots—Members might or might not be aware of them—which took place in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The significance of those riots, and the parallel with today’s situation, is that mine owners and the representatives on the Government Benches argued tooth and nail that they could not afford to pay a fair wage to miners working in the most difficult seams in the south Wales valleys. Those miners were living in poverty. I suggest that the parallel is that we should all be working together, with businesses and others, to ensure that people are paid a proper wage.

Chuka Umunna: That is absolutely right. I will explain how we are seeking to promote that through the payment of the living wage.

Anne Main: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chuka Umunna: I am going to make a little more progress and will perhaps give way a bit later.
	I was about to go into the shape and the nature of the employment that we see. There are those who are in work but cannot get the additional hours that they want. Over 1.4 million people are working part-time because they cannot find a full-time job; that figure is up by more than a third compared with when this Government came into office. Over 3 million workers—more than 10% of the work force—are underemployed. These are people who are employed but wish to work more hours in their current role or are looking for an additional job or a replacement job that offers more hours. We want to change this.
	Above all, as many of my hon. Friends have said, there are those who do not have any security at work but want it so that they can plan and provide stability for their families. Over half a million employees in temporary positions lack any job security because they cannot find permanent roles. Last year, we learned the true extent of the abuse of zero-hours contracts, which my hon. Friends just mentioned, when the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development published its data suggesting that as many as 1 million people are employed on zero-hours contracts. To recap, we are talking about contracts under which the employee is not guaranteed work and is paid only for the work that he or she carries out. In practice, this means that people do not know where the next pay cheque is coming from, are unable to plan ahead, and, in many cases, are constantly living hand to mouth. Of course, insecurity at work increases pressure on the social security budget because it makes it harder for people to borrow to buy a home or to save for their pension. Again, we are determined to change this. We cannot go on like this.
	It is important to say—it would be remiss of me not to admit it—that I do not pretend that all this pressure on household incomes and insecurity began under this Government. We do not deny that serious structural issues have grown up over the past three decades under Governments of all different colours, but the question is this: what are this Government doing about it? We are now in the fourth year of this Government: have they made things better or worse?

Anne Main: The hon. Gentleman is making a great speech. I liked the bit where he said that not just any old job will do. Will that be his advice to young people who go to a jobcentre? Will he say, “Don’t get any job—a job where you might learn some skills, find the confidence to get up in the morning, or get a work ethic—but wait for the job of your dreams”? Surely it is better to get people back into work, with the dignity it gives, than just to say, “Wait for that dream job under Labour.”

Chuka Umunna: The hon. Lady has completely misinterpreted what I said. I was very clear that we want to see more people in work. However, there is nothing wrong with being ambitious and aspirational for the people we represent. There is nothing wrong with wanting people to have more secure work and wanting to ensure that they actually earn a wage they can live off. I make no apologies for that whatsoever.

Andrew Bridgen: Could the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House whether the gardener and the cleaner at his villa in Ibiza are full-time or part-time employed, and what is their hourly rate of pay?

Chuka Umunna: I have said this before and I will say it again: I think we should keep our families out of this place. The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect on that. If he wants to make another contribution that is perhaps a bit more intelligent and adds something to the debate, I am happy to give way, but clearly he has nothing to add.
	The Government have failed to tackle the cost of living crisis. Family energy bills have been allowed to rise by £300 since the general election. As I said, they have given a huge tax cut to people earning millions of pounds a year while increasing VAT and cutting support for working families. They have failed to act on transport prices. What is certainly clear is that this Government have heaped further insecurity on people at work with their attacks on their fundamental rights and protections. The other week, the Business Secretary said in his speech to the Royal Economic Society—I thought it was a good speech—that he has “resisted moves” in the direction of attacking people’s rights at work. That simply does not reflect the reality.
	When people have been treated unjustly or discriminated against and wish to seek redress, he and his ministerial colleagues have put up a barrier in the form of tribunal fees of up to £1,200, which the Minister for Skills and Enterprise referred to as “moderate” despite the fact that £1,200 is about two weeks’ average earnings. I do not think that is moderate: it is a barrier against access to justice.

Richard Graham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about being ambitious and asks whether things have got better. In my constituency, unemployment has fallen by 20% and youth unemployment by 45%, and the number of new apprentices starting every year is more than double what it was in 2009. Does he agree that that is significant evidence that things are better?

Chuka Umunna: Of course it is good that more people are in work in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but what is the nature of that work? Is it temporary or permanent, and what wages are people earning? That is the question I have posed.

Jim Cunningham: I seem to remember the Chancellor announcing, about 12 months ago, a bonus if people gave up their employment rights. I wonder what happened to that. It demonstrates that what this is really all about is the corrosion of people’s employment rights in this country and making life worse for them.

Chuka Umunna: I will come on to that, but before that I will go through some of the things the Government have done to people’s rights in the workplace. They have increased the service requirement for claiming unfair dismissal from one to two years, depriving people of the right to seek justice when they have been wronged in the workplace. They have reduced compensatory rewards for unfair dismissal, which, as I have said in this House
	before, will impact in particular on those in middle-income occupations—the squeezed middle. They have also reduced the consultation period for collective redundancy and have sought to water down TUPE protections for people. I could go on.
	We know that much of that was inspired by the 2011 report by the Conservative party donor and employment law adviser to the Prime Minister, Adrian Beecroft. By his own admission, in public evidence sessions in this House, Mr Beecroft said that his findings were based on conversations and not on a statistically valid sample of people—classic “off the back of a packet” stuff.
	Never mind Beecroft, the best example of the Secretary of State failing to resist measures that increase insecurity in the workplace—my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) has just referred to this—is the shares for rights scheme announced by the Chancellor at the Conservative party conference in 2012. The scheme provides for new employer shareholder status, whereby in return for between £2,000 and £50,000-worth of shares in their employer, the employee gives up fundamental rights at work: the right not to be unfairly dismissed, rights to statutory redundancy pay, rights to request flexible working and so on.
	For all sorts of reasons, this is a bad idea, so much so that there was cross-party opposition to it, with the former Conservative employment Minister, Lord Forsyth, describing it as having
	“all the trappings of something that was thought up by someone in the bath”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 614.]
	What did the Business Secretary do about it? He not only waved through the scheme; he sponsored its passage through the House. Since then, take-up seems to be low —about 19 inquiries have been made to the Department—but what happened next? Up popped the Deputy Prime Minister at the beginning of the year—let us remember that the Business Secretary waved through the scheme and took it through Parliament—calling for the scheme’s abolition.
	Let me get this right: the Deputy Prime Minister’s two Liberal Democrat colleagues—the Business Secretary and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson)—guided the policy through the House just 10 months ago; the Deputy Prime Minister marched his Members through the Division Lobby, along with Conservative Members, to introduce it; and now the Deputy Prime Minister wants to take credit for saying he wants to scrap this disastrous scheme, which he set up in the first place.
	I know the Liberal Democrats have a reputation for this sort of thing, but even by their standards this really does take trying to have your cake and eat it to a whole new level.

Andrew Bridgen: rose—

Chuka Umunna: I am not giving way to that gentleman.
	What would we do? To relieve the squeeze on incomes, we would take action to make work pay by expanding free child care for working parents. We would freeze gas and electricity bills while we make long-term changes to the energy market. We would introduce a 10p starting rate of tax, funded by a mansion tax. The Secretary of State was in favour of that once, but seems to have
	taken to voting against it, as well as against our motions about it in this House.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Perhaps he will correct the record.
	Let us not forget that my party stood up to the nay-sayers and introduced the national minimum wage. The value of the minimum wage has fallen by 5% under this Government, so we have asked Alan Buckle, the former deputy chairman at KPMG, to investigate how we can make sure that the role and powers of the Low Pay Commission are extended in order to restore that value.

Angela Watkinson: I am sure that it was not his intention, but the hon. Gentleman has given the impression that all the new jobs are either on zero-hours contracts or provide extremely low incomes. Does he take encouragement from what has happened in my constituency, where unemployment had stuck at 3.5% for 13 years, but has now dropped to 3%, meaning that those people now have security, jobs and independence?

Chuka Umunna: I am happy to clarify that I was not saying that all the jobs created are as the hon. Lady has suggested.
	We want to ensure that the national minimum wage is properly enforced. That is why we want fines of up to £50,000, and we would give local authorities a role in enforcement. To go back to what I said earlier, ultimately, we want more people to be in receipt of a wage on which they can live.

Jenny Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that people who get jobs on the minimum wage through employment agencies routinely have their wages docked to cover the administration of their pay? Very low-paid workers are therefore receiving far less—up to £16 or £20 a week less—than the minimum wage.

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that the Secretary of State is investigating that outrageous practice at the moment, and we await the findings of his Department’s investigation.
	We have already made it clear that we disagree with heaping job insecurity on people in work, which is why we have opposed and voted against all the measures that this Government have introduced to water down people’s rights at work.

Andrew Bridgen: rose—

Chuka Umunna: I am not giving away.
	For that reason, we would abolish the ridiculous shares for rights scheme. Zero-hours contracts have been mentioned, and we would ban their exploitative use.

Andrew Bridgen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hate to raise a point of order, but I think that the shadow Minister may be misleading the House inadvertently. He is talking about job security, but the latest ACAS figures—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He knows that that is not a point of order, but a point of debate. We are in the middle of the debate. If the shadow Minister wishes to take an intervention, he can do so. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to attempt to make a speech later, he can do so, but that is not a point of order.

Chuka Umunna: I am not sure that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) is having a very good day.
	Several hon. Members have already raised the issue of zero-hours contracts, and let me explain how we would stop their exploitative use. We would prevent employers from insisting that people on zero-hours contracts are available to work even when there is no guarantee that they will be given any work. We would prohibit zero-hours contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one employer. We would prevent the misuse of zero-hours contracts. When, in practice, employees regularly work a certain number of hours a week, they are entitled to a contract that reflects the reality of their regular hours.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my hon. Friend speculate on why for some reason my M4 travel-to-work area, where there is some good and encouraging news on jobs, has the highest level of food bank usage in the whole of Wales and has seen a tenfold increase in payday loans, including to people in work, during the past year?

Chuka Umunna: We know that there has been stagnation in wages. My hon. Friend has given the clearest evidence of the impact of that in his constituency. That relates to the points that I have made to Government Members. Of course it is a good thing that people who have not been in work are getting work. The key thing is that it must be decent work that prevents people from having to go to food banks because they are not earning enough.

Brian H Donohoe: My hon. Friend is being most gracious in taking so many interventions. One group of people who have been almost forgotten are small shopkeepers, who are suffering immensely as a consequence of the state of this nation. They have not been mentioned, but they have very insecure futures. Surely we should address that, as well as the other matters that we are addressing this afternoon.

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is right. We are a nation of shopkeepers. That is why we want to cut business rates in 2015 and freeze them thereafter. We also want to provide more support for local communities and high streets. I am proud to have the longest continuous stretch of high street in the country in my constituency.

Guy Opperman: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech and there have been good parts of it. He has spoken about voting records. Can he assist the House by giving any example of when the Labour party has voted in favour of or supported the Government’s position on employment, business or welfare reform over the past four years?

Chuka Umunna: In relation to business reform, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the comments that we made during the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question, so he should let me finish the answer. There are elements of the 2013 Act that we thought were commendable, such as instituting the Competition and Markets Authority and setting up the green investment bank, which we started to do in government. However, we did not entertain the proposals to water down people’s rights at work so that they would be scared out of their wits, because that would have an adverse impact not only on them and their families, but on the economy.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about social security. There are two ways in which we can reduce the social security bill. First, we can ensure that more people get back into work. I very much welcome all the examples that have been given of that. Secondly, we can ensure that people earn a wage that they can live off. They will then pay more in national insurance and we will pay out less in tax credits, which is good for the Exchequer.

Richard Fuller: The shadow Secretary of State is making a thoughtful speech. Many Members on this side of the House would like to see him as shadow Chancellor. Unfortunately, it seems that we will have to wait until after the next election to see that.
	The motion refers to increasing wages and to the living wage. However, there is a tapering effect that means that if somebody on the minimum wage has a pay increase of 23%—the difference between the minimum wage and the living wage for people living outside London—the increase in the money in their pocket turns out to be only 1% or 2% because of the changes in benefits. If the shadow Secretary of State were in charge, how would the Government address that?

Chuka Umunna: It is the aim of all Labour Members not to be in the shadows at all. We are happy to give the shadow positions to Government Members.
	On the hon. Gentleman’s point about wages, it is important that we incentivise employers to pay a living wage. Imposing a living wage on employers would have an adverse impact. We intend to introduce Make Work Pay contracts, through which we will give employers a tax incentive to pay the living wage. The Exchequer will easily get back the cost of that through national insurance.

Richard Fuller: rose—

Chuka Umunna: I will try to make progress, because I am conscious that I have been going on for some time.
	We would clamp down on false self-employment. That is the practice by which employers classify their workers as self-employed in order to pay lower levels of national insurance. Of course, that leaves workers without the protections that are enjoyed by employees, even though most people would regard their relationship as one of employment. That is a particular issue in construction. The last Labour Government proposed that workers should automatically be deemed as employed for tax purposes if they met the criteria that most people would regard as obvious signs of being employees rather than self-employed contractors. That will be the starting point for the next Labour Government.
	To conclude, we have a bigger goal. Our ambition must be to transform our labour market from one that has too high a percentage of low-wage and low-skill jobs into a high-wage, high-value and high-skill labour market. Of the 25 economies in the OECD, we rank fifth in the percentage of our labour market that is low-waged and low-skilled, and we must tackle that.

Gareth Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a 24% reduction in people claiming benefits in my constituency, which is not a million miles from his constituency? Most of those jobs are full-time, permanent positions, and many are for 18 to 24-year-olds. That happened only because we did not take the advice that the Labour party gave us over the past three to four years, and we stuck with our plans. Why should we start taking the hon. Gentleman’s advice now?

Chuka Umunna: I think the clue is in the question. The hon. Gentleman said three to four years, but he did not mention that we had a flatlining economy during that period, or all the stress and worry that people have been subject to in the meantime. That is why we disagreed with his Government’s economic strategy.
	Returning to the composition of our Labour market, as economists grapple with the ongoing productivity puzzle, a growing body of thought suggests that it is explained by the compositional change in the work force that I mentioned, and the change towards having more low-paid, low-productivity sectors than before. We must address that and do so fast.

Tom Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. In 2011, employers spent £1,680 per employee on skills and training, but that has fallen to £1,590 this year. Does my hon. Friend think that has anything to do with the £54 billion fall in investment in SMEs since 2011?

Chuka Umunna: I agree with all of that, and it has definitely had an impact. Ultimately, to tackle these problems we need a proper comprehensive industrial strategy that is implemented across all Departments. Some people say, “Well, the Government have an industrial strategy”, but there is no point having an industrial strategy that only the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills buys into, or in using such a strategy to support our defence sector if at the beginning of the Parliament the Ministry of Defence decides to buy product off the shelf from other countries. We must rebalance the economy in the long term, and that is still some way off. In his speech the other week, the Secretary of State acknowledged that, but we still do not export enough, and we still have geographical imbalances and relatively low levels of business investment. We will earn and grow our way out of this cost of living crisis and create more security by better balancing our economy with a proper industrial strategy. I commend the motion to the House.

Vincent Cable: I am delighted to respond to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and I appreciate
	that, as he acknowledged at the beginning of his remarks, he has a problem because trying to manufacture an Opposition day debate on the economy is difficult when it is now growing rapidly.

Chris Williamson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Vincent Cable: Give me some time and I will happily take interventions. I am always generous with interventions and I will wait until a suitable point and give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	The danger the hon. Member for Streatham faces is that of creating a cliché such as “triple-dip recession” or “no more boom and bust” that then proves to be positively cringeworthy when the situation changes. Labour’s slogan is now the “cost of living crisis”, and at first sight that is a plausible line of attack because, as I have always acknowledged, real wages fell in the wake of the financial crisis, the country is poorer and the consequences have been painful. The hon. Gentleman buttressed his argument by quoting from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that this painful process is likely to go on until the end of next year. That was what it said until quite recently, but I do not know whether he has seen its report today, which states that the cost of living crisis is to turn around this year. Inflation is now falling so rapidly and the economy recovering so quickly that it expects that turnaround to happen by the middle of the year. I fear that the “cost of living crisis” may be another to go in to the museum of clichés.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Has the Secretary of State done an analysis of when the cost of living crisis might turn around in different regions of the UK, such as south Wales? What is his best guess on that?

Vincent Cable: I will get on to regional variation. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of Wales, because I was studying the regional employment changes and Wales has done relatively well against almost every other region of the UK. Despite the terrible history of unemployment in Wales, its unemployment level is now at the UK average. Its increase in employment levels is greater than in any other part of the UK, including London and the south-east. There is a good story in Wales as well as many very deep problems, which I of course acknowledge.

Nadine Dorries: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government do not create jobs? Many of the new jobs that have been created have come from the SMEs. The cost of living crisis will turn around quickly, and would do so even more quickly if the banks allowed funding to get to SMEs a little more quickly so that they can grow as they want to with the funding that they need.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Lady is right, and it is one of the major casualties of the banking crisis that SME lending dried up. We are taking action on that through the business bank and in other ways. Restoring credit to the SMEs through the banking sector is a critical objective and it is a constraint on growth.
	The shadow Minister’s conclusion was a good issue to embark on, and I just wish that he had spent more than two minutes and the last line of the motion on it. There is a real issue about how the recovery will be sustained. There are deep problems, including the lack of trained people and the rebuilding of supply chains. I would love to have a long debate with him about the industrial strategy, how we extend it, and what a Labour Government would do to reinforce it. I do not know whether the shadow Chancellor will come up with some more money, but I would be delighted to hear that it would have that kind of support. But the shadow Minister dismissed it as an afterthought in the last two minutes of a half hour speech, and I was, frankly, rather disappointed by that.
	The shadow Minister chose to focus on jobs, and they are of course central. I want to address the issues of employment and employment conditions—

Sheila Gilmore: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way before he moves on to the next section of his speech, because I would like him to correct the possible misinterpretation of the IFS report that he has given. While matters might be beginning to turn round sooner than it thought last year, its general conclusion was that
	“there is little reason to expect a strong recovery in living standards over the next few years…real earnings are not expected to return to their 2009-10 levels until 2018-19.”

Vincent Cable: That is correct. I was merely referring to the point at which things start to turn around and improve. The IFS, like everyone else, underestimated the strength and speed of the recovery. Of course, its forecasts, like everyone else’s, may have to be revised upwards.
	I have been responding to debates from my current position for the best part of four years, and I have seen the Opposition’s jobs argument go through four or five iterations. When we first started, the argument from the Opposition was that the attempt to deal with the fiscal crisis would result in mass unemployment. That now looks positively silly today, but if they go back to their speeches in 2010, that was their prediction. We now have the highest level of employment ever—30 million. We have 1.3 million more people in employment than in 2010. The jobless—unemployed—total has fallen not just in relative terms, but in absolute terms by 650,000 to 7.1 %. Of course, there are regional variations. I accept that there are particularly serious problems in the north-east, which is the only part of the UK that has double-digit unemployment.
	It is worth contrasting the overall picture with some other countries that had a far less serious experience of the financial crisis than we did. Sweden has 8% unemployment. The unemployment rate in Canada, which everybody thinks is a wonderful economy—we recruited our central banker from there—is higher than in the UK. In the eurozone, even including Germany and Austria, it is 12%. Our unemployment position is significantly better than that of most other western countries.

Chris Williamson: Will the Secretary of State at least acknowledge that the degree of underemployment is masking the real problem in the economy? If those
	people were put in full-time equivalent posts, the number of unemployed people would be a much bigger picture, would it not?

Vincent Cable: I am going to come on to underemployment and part-time employment shortly, because it is a legitimate concern. Obviously, there are people who took part-time jobs in the depth of the recession who now want full-time work—of course that is true. What the hon. Gentleman might not be aware of is that in the past year the number of people in part-time employment has actually fallen in absolute terms by 7,000, and that the number of people in full-time employment has risen by 475,000. There was an issue relating to part-time jobs in the depth of the recession. It was understandable that people took part-time jobs in a very difficult situation, but over the last year the position has changed dramatically. Building an argument around part-time employment is now of historic interest, not contemporary interest.

Stephen Timms: It is not an historic concern. The number of people who are working part time because they cannot find full-time work is still more than 1.4 million. It has never been that high before. It is a current problem, which the Secretary of State should be concerned about.

Vincent Cable: It is a current problem, but it is a declining problem. The trend over the past year is striking: the new jobs being created are full-time jobs and part-time employment is declining. Of course, there are a lot of people who took part-time employment under very difficult conditions who now want full-time work. If the recovery is sustained, as it must be, then this problem will resolve itself, but I accept that there are a lot of people in unsatisfactory employment situations.

Russell Brown: We have now had nearly four years of talking about the numbers of people who are unemployed and the number who are employed. Does the Secretary of State have the figures for the number of hours worked on a weekly basis? Is he able to track that over the past three or four years?

Vincent Cable: I do not have those figures, but I am sure we could get them. I am sure my colleague the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will dig them out for him. I am sure that they reflect the pattern I describe that, certainly over the last year, full-time employment that is rising relative to part-time employment.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Secretary of State give us the figures for those who are on zero-hours contracts?

Vincent Cable: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had official figures from the Office for National Statistics and there has been a very wide range of surveys. The reason I have embarked on a formal consultation, which will be concluded at the end of March and will lead to policy action on the issues to which the shadow spokesman referred, is that we need to have a proper understanding of the scale before legislation is initiated. The simple answer is that nobody knows how many people are on zero-hours contracts—indeed, nobody can precisely define what they are.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Vincent Cable: I think I would rather press on. I will take other interventions later.
	The next twist in the argument on employment moved gradually away from the prediction of mass unemployment. The argument became that because public sector employment was declining, the growth in private sector employment would never catch up. What has actually happened is a very clear trend. In the period since we came into office, 1.1 million private sector jobs have been created. There have been losses in public sector employment of 440,000 jobs, but the ratio is about three to one. If we go back to the first quarter of last year, before the recovery had become properly embedded, the figures show that in every single region of the country, including in the north-east of England, private sector growth exceeded the decline in public sector employment, and that that trend has been sustained.

Andrew Bridgen: We have been talking about the rise in the number of people on zero-hours contracts. Is the Secretary of State aware of a report by ACAS saying that between 2003-04 and 2010-11—under Labour—the number of people on zero-hours contracts actually doubled?

Vincent Cable: Indeed, and to be fair to the shadow Secretary of State, he did acknowledge that job insecurity—particularly zero-hours contracts—was not particular to our period in office but was a long-term trend.

David Rutley: The Secretary of State makes an important point about the focus being on private sector, not public sector jobs, which is an important development, especially for the north-west, where my constituency is situated. Under the previous Government, far too many jobs—tens of thousands—were created in the public sector, which crowded out jobs and had a detrimental impact on the private sector. Will he confirm that this Government are putting the focus on private sector job creation, encouraging people to become first-time entrepreneurs and, through things such as the employment allowance, enabling them to become first-time employers as well?

Vincent Cable: The so-called crowding-out problem might well be an issue, if we run into problems of labour shortage, and indeed we are running into serious vacancies in some parts of the economy, so that might be a highly relevant consideration.
	The rapid results service behind me has produced an answer on the number of hours worked. Apparently, in the last quarter, 969 million hours were worked, which was a 2.5% increase on the year.

Tom Blenkinsop: The Office for National Statistics estimated that 0.57% of the working population were on zero-hours contracts in 2010 and that by 2012 that had leapt to 0.84%, so it almost doubled in that two-year period under this Government.

Vincent Cable: We have now got back to 2010-11, but perhaps I can press on.

Jenny Chapman: It is pleasing that the Secretary of State has referred to the north-east and acknowledged that we have a particular problem. He said that he would introduce policy once he knew the scale of the issues, but regardless of that, will he commit to doing something about employment agencies’ practice of skimming off tens of pounds from the weekly pay of minimum wage earners?

Vincent Cable: I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady is referring to. Is she referring to something illegal that needs to be investigated? I think the shadow Secretary of State raised the issue of abuses by employment agencies at the last BIS questions. We had been tipped off about that, and we are investigating where there is illegality.

Jenny Chapman: I am happy to explain. A constituent of mine contacted me after taking a job through an employment agency on the minimum wage. He was required to sign away £16 of his earnings per week to pay the agency to process his pay—that is what he was told—so he is now taking home much less than the minimum wage. I can assure the Secretary of State that such practices are widespread. Will he commit to cracking down on this, regardless of the scale?

Vincent Cable: Of course, if there is illegal abuse of the minimum wage, it needs to be investigated and prosecuted, and we will do that. If the hon. Lady gives me the facts I will ensure that the matter is followed up.
	I want to round up on the broad issue of the level of employment. The trend is clear: employment is growing rapidly, unemployment is falling and all parts of the UK are now benefiting. Even among particular groups of the population with past experiences of unemployment —for example, lone parents, disabled people and over-65s—employment is now at pre-recession levels. The overall story in the labour market is a positive one, but there are still large pockets of serious structural unemployment and people who want full-time employment —we acknowledge that—and that is why the recovery still has to be made sustainable.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) raises a very important point. We might be talking about a circumvention of the law or a loophole. Will the Secretary of State ensure that people on the minimum wage are not being scammed or skimmed by agencies and losing part of their vital weekly wage because of some of these schemes? It would be obscene is that was happening.

Vincent Cable: It is not clear to me from the intervention whether we are talking about avoidance or evasion. I need to be clear before we take action, so if either the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), or both, give me the details, I will deal with the issue.

Debbie Abrahams: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being generous with his time. Is he aware that the health effects of insecure employment are exactly the same as those for people who are unemployed? He will be aware that mental health problems, as well as
	physical health problems such as cardiovascular disease, are associated with unemployment, but there is clear evidence that insecure work also has these detrimental effects. Has his Department made any assessment of the effects not just on individuals—which can obviously be traumatic if they have a myocardial infarction, for example—but on the health service?

Vincent Cable: Yes, we are well aware that insecurity in general has negative health effects. It is important, therefore, that we restore security.
	It is worth quoting a study that was carried out a year or so ago, which contrasted people’s attitude towards their work now with their attitude roughly a decade ago, in 2003-04. The workplace employment relations study said that despite recession, the level of work satisfaction is higher than it was before. Of course, these are qualitative judgments and we cannot quantify these things, but I accept the basic point—we need job security and confidence—so let me take the various policy issues raised in the motion, and that the Opposition spokesman raised.
	We are already dealing with some of the issues the hon. Gentleman raised, as he well knows. The consultation on zero-hours contracts will finish on 13 March. We have made it clear that we would like to take action on exclusivity. We are discussing the practicalities of that and I will return to the House to report on it. He refers in the motion to penalties for minimum wage abuse. He may recall that I explained to the House just over a week ago—I think I was facing the shadow Chief Secretary —that the penalties are being quadrupled. We are bringing forward primary legislation that will extend the penalty system per worker, rather than per company, which will potentially be much more prohibitive.
	Contrary to what it says in the motion, we are looking at local enforcement. Joint actions between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and local councils are already taking place. Again, we have acknowledged that there are issues with false self-employment. The Treasury has admitted that this is a potential area of abuse. It has investigated it and a consultation is going out on how we can deal with the problem. Therefore, a lot of the issues raised in the motion are already being dealt with, as I think the shadow spokesman is well aware.
	However, I want to deal with the areas where the hon. Gentleman reheats some of the criticisms of actions we took in the past. On the broad issue of employment rights, I have always made it clear that the hire and fire culture is not something I or we want to see. The people who argued that introducing a hire and fire culture into business was the only way to create employment have been proved as comprehensively wrong as the people who talked about a triple-dip recession, which is why we have not followed their advice.
	It would also have been gracious to acknowledge that in some respects employment rights have been massively enhanced, and in two respects in particular: shared parental leave and paternity leave, and extending the right to flexible working. This affects hundreds of thousands of workers and potentially millions, whose rights at work have as a consequence been entrenched.

Michael Connarty: Talking about hire and fire cultures, does the Secretary of State recall saying that there should be no discrimination
	or victimisation of trade unionists following the dispute at Ineos in my constituency? Is he therefore as shocked as I am to hear that the convenor of shop stewards has today been summarily dismissed by the company on trumped-up charges?

Vincent Cable: I am surprised at that. I am not an expert on employment law, but I thought that protection from dismissal for trade union activities was a fully protected employment right. If the story is as has just been described, I would have thought the person concerned would have a good case to support his job.
	Let me deal with the areas where the Opposition spokesperson was critical. He referred to the fact that we have quite deliberately tried to reduce the scope of employment tribunals, both by extending the qualifying period from one to two years and through the fee system, albeit with remission in respect of people on low incomes, as I think he would acknowledge. That was done for a specific reason. We are trying to ensure that difficult cases are moved from a legal, court framework to a framework of conciliation through ACAS. Lest anyone imagine that ACAS is some right-wing, business-friendly organisation that is against employees, let me point out—I do not know whether this has been picked up by the Opposition—that I recently appointed Brendan Barber as its head, so those whose employment disputes are referred to it can be pretty confident that they will be dealt with properly. It is surely right and sensible for small and medium-sized companies in particular not to tie up a lot of time and money in litigious processes when their disputes can be dealt with much better through conciliation.
	The motion also refers to the dilution, as it has been described, of health and safety standards, although the hon. Member for Streatham did not refer to that in his speech. I do not know whether he has read the Löfstedt report, but it makes the position very clear. Essentially, what we have suggested is that where there is high-risk employment—and there is a great deal of it in agriculture, construction and manufacturing—the inspection regime should remain intact, but where there is found to be a low risk and that finding is evidence-based, the level of inspections should be reduced. No attempt is being made to undermine the safety regime applying to dangerous occupations.
	It is worth bearing it in mind that, under the present Government, as under the last, British safety records are exemplary. According to our most recent survey, there were 148 fatalities last year. That is 148 too many, but the figure is comparable to the figure for best previous year, 2009-2010, and significantly better than the figures in any other previous years. It means that we have a better health and safety record than almost any other country, including Germany, and that we are three times safer than France. Members should try to remember that important context before making throwaway references to diluting health and safety.

Stephen Timms: This is not a throwaway reference. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has seen the interview with Professor Löfstedt, whom he mentioned earlier. In that interview, which was published last month, the professor mentioned some of the steps the Government have taken on, for example, civil liability. He said:
	“It’s very unfortunate; it’s more or less ideology. I have been trying to promote evidence based policy making and this does not help”.
	That is what Professor Löfstedt is now saying about what the Government are doing.

Vincent Cable: My impression is that the policy we have been pursuing is very much evidence-based, and the examples I have given on inspections are in precisely that category. However, my colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions know much more about this aspect of the subject than I do, and no doubt they will respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s point.
	Finally, let me deal with the one issue on which the hon. Member for Streatham spent quite a lot of time and with which he had a certain amount of fun. I refer to the “shares for rights” scheme. Of course, it is possible to develop a critique of that scheme, but what I find amusing is that at least three totally separate and conflicting arguments have been advanced against it. The first is that downtrodden workers will be stripped of their employment rights. When the scheme was being dealt with in Parliament, we tried to ensure that it would be entirely voluntary, and indeed we responded to proposals from the Opposition in order to entrench that.
	Another line of criticism has nothing to do with downtrodden workers, but is all about highly paid executives carrying out a tax scam. That may be true. However, a third criticism—which we heard from Back Benchers and which is, at least currently, supported by the facts—was that neither of those things are happening, because not many people are taking up the scheme. If the Opposition are going to launch a full-frontal attack on the proposals, they should work out which of those three arguments they believe in.

Chuka Umunna: The Secretary of State has argued that he has resisted some of the nastier aspects of his coalition partners’ moves to water down people’s rights at work, but we need only read the reports of what was said on both sides of the House of Lords to see what impact the “shares for rights” scheme was expected to have. That is the point I was making.

Anne Main: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it parliamentary language to describe our coalition partners as “nasty”? There has been no proof of that during the debate.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point of order. Of course it is always wise for Members to moderate their language. I make no ruling on whether the word “nasty” is appropriate, but it is certainly not a bad enough word for me to insist on its withdrawal.

Vincent Cable: It cannot have the damaging effects that have been described if companies do not take it up. We will wait and see how many of this modest number of inquiries actually lead to schemes being established. If there are large numbers and they do have the damaging effects suggested, I will retract some of the comments I have been making, but I think the problem is likely to be that, far from damaging workers and far from leading to large-scale tax avoidance, it remains a niche scheme chosen by a handful of companies as an experiment, and as such it can do no harm.
	Let me conclude by dealing with what I think should have been the meat of the debate: industrial strategy. It is important that we discuss that. It is very important
	that the shape and sustainability of the recovery be maintained. I would argue that what we have done is something that has not been done for decades. We are trying to get industry around the table, talking to each other, thinking about partnership, thinking about long-term policy. That has not happened for a very long time. Business is very enthusiastic about it. Trade unions are very enthusiastic about it, too. They want to join our various sector groups.
	When we do get round to debating this subject properly, I will be interested in hearing how the Opposition want to develop it. Let us take one or two examples. Although we are pressed for cash, we have put £1 billion into the aerospace industry, co-financing the private sector, and we have put £500 million into the car industry. We are doing similar things for agribusiness and other sectors. Is the shadow Secretary of State proposing to enhance that, or change or develop it in any way? We would all be interested to know.
	We have rolled out a system of catapults which are attracting a great deal of positive attention from both the research community and business. We have nine of them, and we would obviously like to take this further. If we had the endorsement and support of the Opposition, that would be a great help. I would be interested to know where they want to go with it.
	We have introduced radical reforms of training and apprenticeships, as a result of which we are now getting big improvements in quantity and quality. Again, I have never heard any feedback from the Opposition on where they want to go with vocational training.
	These are the issues we need to be talking about. This is how we are going properly to sustain the genuine and real recovery we have at the moment. I look forward to having those debates in future, but for tonight I recommend that my colleagues vote against this motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. In light of the extent of the interest in this debate, I have to impose with immediate effect a seven-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Russell Brown: I want to begin by reminding colleagues of exactly where we have come from over the last couple of decades. When I entered the House in 1997, in my communities there were many households where families were working flat-out. Many women in particular were holding down two, and sometimes three, jobs in order to make ends meet. Frankly, for many families there was little or no quality family time as parents operated like ships that passed in the night; as one parent came in the door from work, the other was quite often leaving, or at least soon thereafter, to go out and do their job. Work-life balance was not even a thought for many households.
	The then Labour Opposition gave a commitment to introduce a national minimum wage, which the then Conservative Government laughed at saying it would lead to the loss of about 1 million jobs. The evidence showed that if we took £1 million and gave it to the poorest-paid workers, it had the potential to create between 35 and 40 jobs. I served on the national minimum
	wage Committee stage, as did you, Mr Speaker. I distinctly remember two or three long nights when we sat through the night to get that legislation passed.
	What effect did that national minimum wage have? In my area we depend very much on small and medium-sized businesses, but there was a recognition that by paying the poorest people additional income, that money “washed around” in the local economy, giving local businesses the confidence perhaps to take on another member of staff as prospects looked brighter. If every small business had taken on one new member of staff at that time, there would have been no unemployment, and that is still the position today. If every small and medium-sized enterprise took on one additional member of staff, we would have no unemployment. The big issue, however, is whether businesses feel confident enough to do that. They are looking for a degree of certainty, and a glimmer of hope that there will be a brighter future.
	I put it to the Secretary of State that there might well be a recovery going on out there, but it is pretty patchy across the various parts of the United Kingdom. Any economic recovery that has taken place under this Government has involved a race to the bottom for those who earn the lowest wages and have the fewest rights at work. People at work are being hit by rising insecurity, as Ministers have made it easier for employers to fire rather than easier to hire, watered down people’s rights at work and compounded the cost of living crisis for many families. The Opposition have made it clear that we plan to ban zero-hours contracts when they exploit people, to end the scandal of false self-employment, to strengthen the national minimum wage and its enforcement and to incentivise employers to pay a living wage through “make work pay” contracts.
	I want to finish by mentioning a couple of issues that have arisen in my own area. As I have said on many occasions, it is an area with a low-wage economy. I am not, however, one of those individuals who is constantly moaning, and we are now, thankfully, seeing a slight increase in the average wage in rural south-west Scotland. It has moved from being around 24% below the UK national average to being between 18% and 19% below it. One of the big crises in our area is youth unemployment, which remains stubbornly high at 6.1%, compared with the UK average of 4.9%. It has remained at that high level for many years. It is all very well for us in this House to talk about young people being our future; those young people are there today. They are the future, but that is what is happening today.
	A major ferry company operating in my area is now considering exploiting a loophole that would enable it to get rid of its UK crews and bring in crews from non-European economic area countries. That could involve seafarers who, in some parts of the world, are being paid as little as £2.41 an hour. I put it to the Secretary of State that that is a disgrace. It represents the sheer, naked exploitation of a loophole that exists in this country, and I would have expected much more of the company involved. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look seriously at what can be done to close that loophole.
	The other issue came to light in my office towards the end of last week. I have a young constituent who is a single parent. She has been on a zero-hours contract for some time. She wants to establish a business, but her contract states that if she leaves her employment, she cannot go on to do similar work elsewhere within
	three months. She wants to develop her own business, but she is being told not only that she cannot take on similar work or run a business within three months of leaving that company, but that she cannot work within a 10-mile radius of where she is currently working. Her employers have pulled her in and told her that they are prepared to sack her and take her to court. The terms of that contract are unbelievable, and I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will look at some of the contracts that people such as my constituent are having to tolerate in 2014. Finally, I thank him for the figures that he has given the House to illustrate the number of hours being worked per month, but I would like to see the figures for the past four years, if possible.

Ben Gummer: I am grateful to be called in this interesting debate, Mr Speaker. When I saw the title of the motion, I was pleased that the Opposition were tackling a substantive issue that I know is close to the hearts of many Members, on both sides of the House. As we have heard from Labour Members, this subject is the reason why many of them went into politics: they wanted to fight on behalf of their constituents who are most vulnerable at times like these, including to rapacious and exploitative employers.
	I was therefore disappointed to read the content of the motion. I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills that it could have talked about serious issues of job insecurity, especially the problems we face, which are existential challenges as this economy expands and grows once again: how we compete in an increasingly ferocious competitive environment. However, the motion contains a shopping list of failed Labour claims, most of which have been forgotten. Labour Members seem to have gone through so many accusations that they are now retreading them and putting them back in their motions.
	Let me go through the motion line by line. It states:
	“That this House believes that insecurity at work has increased under this Government, compounding the cost of living crisis facing families”.
	There is no recognition, even at the beginning, of the triumph of coming out of the great recession, with 1.3 million more jobs. The greatest insecurity any family can have is not having a job, yet we do have more people in jobs, and most of those people, although not all, are pleased with their jobs. They are pleased that they have a job that is secure—not everyone does, but most do.

Madeleine Moon: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency may well be very different from mine. Job insecurity is high in my area, and the cost of living increase has also been large. The StepChange Debt Charity recently published a report showing the average income of its clients in Bridgend in 2010 was £1,189, yet by 2014 that figure had risen by only £5. By contrast, arrears in gas and electricity bills, and mortgage arrears, are increasing. We are living in very different environments, with different work experiences, which is why Opposition Members are concerned about job insecurity.

Ben Gummer: I am well acquainted with the hon. Lady’s constituency, as it is where my family is originally from. There are certainly differences between her
	constituency and mine, but Ipswich has significant areas of deprivation and its long-term unemployment is above the national average. These are precisely the issues that I am concerned about, just as she is. I recognise the point she is making, but to claim—this is where the shadow Secretary of State really lets himself down—that this is something new immediately debases the debate.
	When we look at the movement of wages over the past 10 to 15 years, we see that a far more subtle change has been going on, which we need to address. Middle-income earners have seen their wages, in real-terms, first plateau and then decrease slightly from 2003-04, even up until the point of the crisis, as a result of increased tax and increased costs of living. That might indicate that we need to have a rather fuller debate about why that is happening in our country—and was even before we hit the extraordinary circumstances of the great recession. Some claim that this has been on the Opposition’s lips for a long time, but I find that problematic, because I was speaking about the cost of living before my election in 2010 and in the days afterwards. It was immediately of concern to everyone, on almost every income, in my constituency.
	I am talking about not just those who are most hard pressed, but those people, often on middle incomes, who have not much wiggle room because they have a mortgage. They are at the most expensive stage in their life. They are bringing up children and saving for a pension. The things that make life bearable for them—sometimes they are in jobs that they do not particularly enjoy—are the holiday and the curry every fortnight. Those things have now gone by the wayside, but that happened not in 2013 but in 2007-08. People’s lifestyles have changed over that period, and we need to address that in the long term. To claim that that change is a result of specific Government policies is profoundly misleading. We are addressing the problems identified on every line of the motion, up to the last one, as the Secretary of State made quite clear,
	The motion mentions the changes to employment regulations. In 2011, an owner of a major cleaning company in my constituency came to see me, saying that she wanted to hire more people on permanent contracts., Admittedly she was offering just above the minimum wage—I am afraid that is what most cleaners in this country are paid—but they were jobs none the less. She said that she was prevented from taking on those people because of the labour regulations. As a result of the changes we made in 2011-12, she has hired dozens more people who otherwise would have been without a job. I want to see those people on a living wage. I also want to see them keeping more of their money, which is partly why I am so proud of what we did with income tax relief for the lowest paid and why, through changes to national insurance, we are making it even easier for companies to hire. It is a good thing to see people employed who otherwise would not have been employed. Those changes have meant that unemployment has come down in my constituency.
	Let me now take the example of zero-hour contracts. In a Public Bill Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made an important point about why for her, at a time in her life when she had just had children, zero-hours contracts were useful. There are many people on zero-hours contracts who would prefer to be on a permanent contract. The Chartered Institute
	of Personnel and Development suggests that it is only a minority of people who are on zero-hours contracts. Like the hon. Lady, there might be many people who value them at a particular moment.
	Just this weekend, I met a constituent who made an interesting point. Before the great recession, he was employed as a construction worker. He was laid off in 2009-10. Recently, he has been getting a lot more agency work, much of which is zero hours, but he is earning considerably more than he did when he was in full-time employment. I asked him whether he preferred the security or the money. He said that, obviously, he would like both, but given a choice at this moment, he preferred the money. He said, “I know that as the economy begins to improve and construction gets a proper foothold, I will have the security, too.” These are difficult choices. I wish that, rather than making a litany of complaints, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) had concentrated on the meat of the discussion, which he outlines in the last sentence of the motion. We need to talk about skills and education levels, all of which were left in a terrible state by the previous Government and which we are having to unpick and undo. I am afraid that that in itself will take several generations to take effect.
	We are talking about the result of decades’ worth of negligence by Governments of both colours. Let us have a proper discussion about that. I hope the Labour party will show itself to be worthy of being not just the Opposition but the potential Government.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend quite rightly highlights the last sentence of the motion, which calls on the Government
	“to adopt a proper industrial strategy to help create more high-skilled, better paid jobs.”
	Does he agree that Government policy on apprenticeships is absolutely key, and that there are two small areas in which they could do even more to highlight the opportunities for young people: funding apprenticeships for the over-25s, and funding employers directly rather than through the training intermediaries?

Ben Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the news on apprenticeships is very good. Between 2010 and 2013, 370,000 additional apprenticeships were created, bringing the number up to nearly 1 million, which is an extraordinary achievement by this Government. We are again showing ourselves to be the true party of labour. I am proud of that and of what we have achieved, but let us think about the long term and the reforms to education and skills that we need to achieve to compete with those very ambitious and aspirational young men and women coming out of schools and colleges in Mumbai and Shanghai. At that point, we will have a proper debate about job insecurity and the future of this nation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that in light of the number of people who want to speak the limit will be cut to five minutes with immediate effect.

Michael Connarty: We are paying the penalty for all the interventions from people who did not put their names down to speak, Mr Speaker.
	I want to focus on one part of the motion—the part that states that the Government’s watering down of rights, including protections against unfair dismissal, might be affecting the job security of people in this country. My main concern is to illustrate that describing the rights of workers as a burden on business sends a signal that has led to some businesses moving backwards in time and thinking that they can ill treat their work force with impunity.
	The House will recall the threat to the INEOS petrochemical and refinery site at Grangemouth in my constituency at the end of 2013. At the time of the agreement that saved the plant, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said that there should be no victimisation of trade unionists by the company. At the time, I asserted that the company had already victimised the joint convener, Stephen Deans, who was forced to resign, but I accept that the Secretary of States probably meant to call for that non-victimisation from the end of the dispute.
	I was pleased when the Secretary of State seemed to say that he was as shocked as I was, and as the INEOS work force, my local community and elected representatives from all parties were, when we heard that the remaining convener had been summarily dismissed today. I investigated in order to find out the purpose of the dismissal and the charges against that trade union convener, who happens to be the vice-chair of Unite in the UK. One charge was that an article in the Daily Recordhad been commented on by the Scottish secretary of Unite, who has nothing to do with the plant, and that the convener had not done enough to influence that person not to write in that paper criticising the company. I criticised the company on the facts: there will be substantial job losses when it shuts the naphtha plant, the butadiene plant and the benzene plant. That was what was said in the article.
	The second charge referred to:
	“Comments attributed to you during a meeting held with the refinery management team on 12th December 2013 as detailed in the notes presented to you with the disciplinary invitation letter.”
	That meeting was when the convener pointed out to the company that the shift schedule it had put together for the maintenance shutdown of the refinery would not work. The odd thing is that the company has now adopted his suggested schedule for work during the shutdown while sacking him for suggesting it in the first place. That is a trumped-up charge to get rid of the convener because, in this day and age, the company wants to get rid of the trade union.
	After further investigation, I discovered that the company has been going around telling the elected shop stewards that they are not suitable people, that their credentials will be removed and that management will decide who will be the conveners and the representatives. Last night, I sought out the International Labour Organisation conventions on the matter. They are convention 87, on freedom of association and the protection of the right to organise, and convention 98, on the right to organise and collective bargaining, and they have both been breached by the company. I thought that perhaps something had happened under the UK Government to weaken
	those conventions, so I looked up the rights of trade unionists in the UK on the gov.uk website. The section headed “Trade union membership: your employment rights” states that people have the right to be a trade unionist and to be an activist with a trade union, and that they will be represented by their elected convener or shop steward. I went to the next section, entitled “Role of your trade union rep”, and that role is to represent members’ views to management and take part in discussions with management.
	Every source is saying that a company does not have the right to sack a convener for telling the management that the work force have a different view. A company has no right to sack a convener because it does not like the fact that his union wrote something about it in a newspaper. The Secretary of State has underwritten £150 million in loan guarantees for the company to fund its expansion into using ethane from America and it has received £9 million from the Scottish Government in regional selective assistance, so I call on the Secretary of State to make these people come to the table and realise that they cannot breach ILO conventions or the laws of this land by sacking people summarily. I demand that they reinstate the convener forthwith and do what we all said. There should be no recriminations and no victimisation; let us negotiate the way forward. This is an important issue for my constituents and the economy of both Scotland and this country and we cannot have bully boys. I name Declan Sealy as the person who is behind all this in the company.

Nigel Adams: I know from personal and family experience that job insecurity, unemployment and long-term unemployment in particular are very damaging to individuals and communities. Unemployment can affect mental and physical health and hold back economic growth. I know what it is like for a family’s breadwinner to be made redundant. I know what it is like to start with nothing, but I also know what it is like to create a business, create jobs and create wealth and opportunities. It is right to help people into work and make sure that work pays. In return, people on out-of-work benefits, for example, should be encouraged to take the opportunities available to help them move off benefits and into work.
	I am encouraged that the number of people on jobseeker’s allowance in my constituency has fallen by over a third since the last election. With an out-of-work rate of 2.2%, the situation is a lot rosier than it was in the depths of the financial crisis. Long-term unemployment and youth unemployment are also down by a quarter. However, I will highlight one area in my constituency where job insecurity is real. I make no apology for using most of my speech to talk about this issue.
	I am proud to represent a constituency whose two power stations at Drax and Eggborough are responsible for about 12% of the UK’s electricity generation. I was delighted that, before Christmas, Drax was awarded an investment contract to convert one of its units to renewable biomass. This is great news for local jobs. Sadly, Eggborough power station, which recently celebrated 1 million running hours since its opening in 1967, was not so lucky.
	Eggborough is a cornerstone of industry for the region, for both the 800 employees on site and the thousands of engineering, construction and procurement workers across
	the region whose jobs depend on Eggborough’s continuing survival. The station plans to convert from coal to biomass in a project worth £750 million for our region. A number of local MPs and I are deeply concerned that its future could now be at risk, and with that comes increased job insecurity.

Andrew Percy: This is a big issue in my constituency as well. My hon. Friend is fighting tirelessly for Eggborough. Is not the risk that if these jobs go, they will be replaced by energy generation that is largely constructed overseas? It will probably be offshore wind and most of those units will come from overseas.

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is right. He has been a great help in the campaign to ensure that Eggborough stays open. There is no sense in creating jobs overseas for technologies that do not produce electricity, when we have right on our doorstop technology that can work with our existing coal plant conversions.
	Converting the station to biomass means 800 new on-site jobs and delivers growth right across the region. The majority of the work force, however, will be local to Selby. Of course, it is not just about new jobs for a new generation of workers; it is about preserving existing jobs on and off site. Many workers on site have given most of their professional lives to Eggborough and it is unthinkable that Eggborough should be forced out of business just as they are nearing retirement. I, the management of Eggborough and my colleagues will continue fighting for this project, because it is the right thing to do, not just for our energy security, but because of the hundreds of workers who are dependent on it for their livelihoods. Over the years the Selby area has lost its shipbuilding industry, and in 2004 the large Selby coalfield closed down, but thankfully we are seeing business confidence return and with that come jobs and opportunities.
	The problem I have with the Opposition motion today is that it appears to have been drafted by someone who clearly has never been an employer. There seems to be a strategy to try to talk down the British economy at every opportunity for political advantage. Like several of my colleagues on the Government Benches, rather than talking a good game, I took the decision to try to take action in my constituency and organised jobs fairs, matching employers and jobseekers. I have also been into the jobcentre to help with mentoring and interview skills. The jobs fairs have been extremely successful in getting people back into work. We have now had three jobs fairs in the district and will shortly be organising the next one.
	I want to take this opportunity to thank Jobcentre Plus for all its efforts in working with me and my team. I also thank Selby college and all the companies and organisations that brought their vacancies to the jobs fairs. I urge Opposition Members please to engage with the private sector in their constituencies and to do something positive, such as organising jobs fairs, because they really work. I regularly visit companies in my patch, and the news is extremely encouraging.
	Jobs in this country are up. More than 30 million people are now working, which means more than 30 million individuals taking a pay packet home to their families. Vacancies are also up, which is extremely encouraging.
	They are now at their highest level for five years. A recent snapshot showed 569,000 unfilled job vacancies across the country. In addition, it is British people who are being hired, as in the past year 90% of new jobs went to UK nationals. The new jobs being created are overwhelmingly full-time, permanent jobs in the private sector.
	We are by no means out of the woods, but the Government are delivering a sustainable recovery and making difficult long-term decisions to secure a better future for everyone. Lord help us if the anti-business, anti-aspiration party on the Opposition Benches is ever returned to government.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) and to tell him that we do have jobs fairs. In fact, we have had them for years in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and in my coterminous constituency, run highly successfully by the Labour-controlled Bridgend county borough council, working with the local chamber of commerce and local businesses. We are not an anti-entrepreneur party—quite the opposite.
	Something very odd is going on in south Wales, as I suggested earlier. Long-term youth unemployment is still remarkably high—intransigently so—and the overall level of employment is not good, but there are some encouraging signs. At the same time, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend will know, our county borough area has recently been identified as the area with the highest level of food bank use in the whole of Wales. Every single village in my constituency now has a food bank. It is a tremendous tribute to the work of the volunteers, the Trussell Trust, local churches and so on, but why are so many people who are in work having to go to food banks?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend referred to a recent report by StepChange, the UK’s largest independent debt advice charity, entitled “Wales in the red”, which highlights what is going on in Wales. I want to mention some of its findings. Between 2010 and 2013, the demand for debt advice in Blaenau Gwent increased by 60%. In the Bridgend county borough area it increased by 63%. The same pattern was true in completely different, remote and rural areas such as Denbighshire and Gwynedd. In the Vale of Glamorgan the increase was nearly 60%. The same pattern can be seen right across Wales, but it is significantly bad in the south Wales valleys.
	The report analysed the proportion of the charity’s clients struggling with rent arrears in each of Wales’s 22 unitary authorities. Blaenau Gwent and Ceredigion, which are completely contrasting constituencies, given Blaenau Gwent’s post-industrial structure and Ceredigion’s rurality, have both seen an increase in the proportion of clients struggling with rent arrears—35% in Blaenau Gwent and nearly 40% in Ceredigion. The same can be said of Flintshire, Neath, Port Talbot, Powys, the Vale of Glamorgan and other areas. The employment figures might offer a crude indication of some recovery, but underneath those figures something odd is going on, because many of the people clamouring for debt advice—StepChange makes this point—are actually in work.
	Let me mention a couple of other indicators. In Conwy, the proportion of home-owning clients struggling with mortgage arrears is up to 50%. In Gwynedd, that figure is over 50%. In Pembrokeshire—these are completely contrasting constituencies—it is just shy of 50%. In Powys it is just shy of 50%. Something really odd is going on.
	If we look at the proportion of customers with arrears on gas bills—I will skip over electricity bills, but it is a similar story—we see that nearly 16% of people in Neath Port Talbot and in Torfaen are struggling with that situation. Right across the whole of Wales, bills have increased over the past three years. Something odd is going on.
	My final point is the most significant of all. In every one of the 22 unitary authorities in Wales, many people in work are seeking debt advice. The Bridgend unitary authority area is on the M4 corridor, still has one of the biggest manufacturing belts in the whole of the United Kingdom, and has a travel-to-work area that includes Cardiff, where jobs should be available. Yet people in that area, including those in work, are struggling with payday loans and debt advice, and there has been a near-enough tenfold increase in the number of those seeking payday loans. It is the same in Flintshire, Newport, and so on. Something odd is going on.
	It is great to welcome the crude analysis of people falling off claimant counts, but if they are then falling into debt because they are not being paid enough and are having to rely on loans and getting into debt, that is not good enough. Surely, as a House, we want to do better for our constituents than that.

Anne Main: It is an honour to participate in this debate, because we have some really good news in St Albans. I can tell Labour Members that people there appreciate an improving economy under the measures taken by this Government.
	Many of my constituents who commute into London because they are part of the knowledge-based economy will have taken a very dim view of taking hours to get to work this morning. It is amazing that Labour Members have not touched on the fact that an estimated £200 million was lost to the economy by the strikes that were called for today and that 3 million hard-working people will have been forced to traipse miles to work or not have been able to get to work. That is thanks to today’s strike, of which Labour Members have refused to take any cognisance.
	We are very lucky in St Albans to have an unemployment rate of only 1.6%. Even with that low rate, there have been significant improvements. Youth unemployment stands at 2.6%, which is half the UK average, but apprenticeships have doubled in the past three years. Under the Labour Government in 2007-10, St Albans had only 630 apprenticeships; now, in 2010-13, it has 1,410 apprenticeships.
	If the public have been watching this debate, they will have heard a new slogan from Labour Members—“Don’t just take any old job.” I look forward to some analysis of which jobs they think are valuable and which they think are any old jobs. I have in my constituency young people getting into jobs who feel the benefit of the experience that being in the workplace brings.
	We have heard nothing from Labour Members today about the fact that if we had obeyed their rules on fuel duty, many of the small businesses that are thriving in St Albans would have found themselves paying 13p a litre more. The hard-pressed families to whom many Labour Members refer are spending £7 a week less under the Conservatives than they would have done if Labour were in power. There has been a great deal of assistance for people who run those small businesses. I notice that Labour Members do not wish to intervene on me when I say that this would have been the state of the economy under Labour.
	We do not say that there are no problems. However, there should at least be some acknowledgement by Labour Members of an economy that was so broken by them, that they did so little to fix, and in which they did not even think about fuel prices for small businesses, deliverymen, and all the people in our economy who get themselves to work. They will not condemn the strikes that prevented many people from getting to work, but they are lambasting us for not doing more to get people proper jobs. This is very surprising from a party that said that it wished to see some form of job creation and that the unemployment rate would rise. That has patently proved to be untrue.
	What is more, we help the parents who are lucky enough to get into jobs by making their child care more affordable, and, if they go to work in their car, they will find that their fuel duty is lower. We have also increased the amount of child-care time to which they are entitled.
	The motion does not reflect the true state of the economy. Nobody is saying that there is nothing more to do—of course there is. When people trudge into work yet again tomorrow, and when so many of us and our constituents trudge home tonight—many people commute into London from St Albans—perhaps the Labour party will reflect on the amount of money that could have been in the economy and the amount of people who could have got to work today. They were prevented from doing so by a union leader who lives in social housing because he feels it is his due, rather than because he needs it, and who has not apologised for the disruption he is causing to the economy that the Government are choosing to improve.
	I would welcome a visit from any Labour Member to St Albans, where they will see that there is optimism even in affluent areas such as mine and that people who had found it hard to get jobs are now, through mature and youth apprenticeships, getting jobs and work experience. I defy Labour Members to tell any of them that those are not proper jobs.

Ian Lavery: This is a timely Opposition motion. The most startling statistic we have heard this afternoon is that, regardless of what we say about jobs, everyone in this country is, on average, £1,600 worse off than they were in 2010. It does not matter what we say: that is the figure.
	I want to focus on the lives of real people in communities across the political divide and throughout the length and breadth of this country. It is a shame that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has left his seat, because he explained from the Dispatch Box on two or three occasions that he understood that the north-east is suffering really badly compared with
	some other parts of the country. If that is the case, why did the Government decide to appoint a Minister for Portsmouth to sort out its problems, but refuse the request to appoint a Minister to sort out the problems in the north-east?
	I fear for young people in the north-east, because 23% of 18 to 24-year-olds are unemployed. They do not have anything to do. I am concerned because they feel ignored, isolated and worthless. They have no self-esteem. They lack hope, ambition and aspiration. There is a poignant joke about a young woman working in Poundstretcher, where everything is worth a pound—apart from her. It is hurtful in many ways, but I think it accentuates the real problem in today’s society.
	The north-east has the highest level of young unemployed people in the country: 20,315 people aged between 18 and 24 are out of work, which is double the figure in the south-east and double that in the south-west.
	I have a real problem with the mental health of a lot of these young people. This is an extremely important issue and it has not really been touched on. A survey by the Prince’s Trust only last year found that 40% of jobless young people suffer from some form of mental illness. They suffer from suicidal thoughts, feelings of self-loathing and panic attacks. As I have said, some regions are faring better than others and I have great concerns about the north-east.
	The north-east has some brilliant, innovative businesses. We have Nissan, which everyone agrees is a fantastic company providing lots of jobs, and AkzoNobel. We also have an excellent small factory called Ashington Embroidery Services, which I visited the other day. The people there previously worked at Remploy and they have made a real job of things. All credit to them—I am not criticising these good companies—but they cannot employ everyone.
	Had I had the time, I would have focused on three issues: zero-hours contracts, the national minimum wage and job insecurity. Obviously, I will not have much time to deal with any of them at great length.
	I was interested to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) today about zero-hours contracts. He explained that his granddaughter was on one of these fantastic zero-hours contracts with McDonald’s. She, like a pool of others, had to sit and wait with their telephones for a text giving the option: “There’s two hours if you need it”. That went to 20, 30, 40 or 50 people, and the first one in got the work. It is absolutely outrageous that we live in such a society. Contrary to many people’s beliefs, zero-hours contracts are absolutely outdated. I do not want them to be just amended and changed, but abolished, because they are not fit for purpose.
	We really need to recognise that life is difficult for many people in many ways. Telling people that they are better off is cruel, unfair and unjust. I fully support the Labour motion.

Justin Tomlinson: It is a real pleasure to participate in this debate, which is covering some important areas. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), I think that there are all too many missed opportunities in the Opposition motion on this important subject.
	The reality is that we are 1.6 million private sector jobs up since the general election. Let us contrast that with the scandalous situation in which the number of workless households more than trebled under the previous Government. It became the norm for future generations just to accept that they would never have the opportunity to work. I have talked in previous debates about how the fact that the school I went to was at the bottom of the league tables and that I had seen generations of people robbed of an opportunity is what got me involved in politics and in supporting the Conservative party.
	In my constituency, unemployment has fallen by 34% and youth unemployment by 30%. Let us remember that no Labour Government have ever left office with lower unemployment, which is their real legacy.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Justin Tomlinson: I will not, because time is limited and other speakers would have their time cut.
	The number of apprentices has now doubled to 1.5 million, which is really worth while. Partly driving that improvement has been our support for businesses through new employee incentives, such as the extension of business rate relief, the cut in corporation tax, start-up business loans and the enterprise allowance—all measures that I have supported and that the Opposition have voted against.
	The national minimum wage is incredibly important. I spoke about it in the Opposition day debate a few weeks ago. I am a big supporter of the national minimum wage. I support the fact that fines will be increased and that they will quite rightly be targeted on a per worker basis. I want more to be done and for us to be proactive in focusing not just on businesses, but actual decision makers within them, because members of staff are being exploited. In some cases, it is borderline slavery. That is rife in many parts of our economy—the restaurant trade, the night-time economy—and much more could be done. The figures show that people have got away with it all too often, not only recently but in the long term.
	I know that the shadow Secretary of State did not want to discuss his personal situation, but when I ran a business, employed people and got them to contribute positively to society, I always made sure that I paid a fair wage. I incentivised my staff and they shared in the business as it did well, because they were more productive—a win-win situation.
	The Government have done much to help keep money in the pockets of hard-working people. The income tax threshold has been raised, and 2.4 million of the lowest earners now pay no income tax at all, while 25 million people have had a tax cut. I have gently encouraged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state any changes, positive or negative, on payslips so that people realise when and why they get more or less money. That would help to create further security.
	The Government have reversed Labour’s trend of continuing to put up fuel duty. There were 12 disgraceful rises in just 13 years, but we cancelled the next six proposed increases. We even cut fuel duty, and since then we have continued to freeze it. That is important
	because fuel is the single most important tangible cost—the one thing which the public can say exactly how much it costs—so keeping its cost down will help to improve confidence. We have also cut the beer duty, which has been much welcomed, and the triple lock for pensions has meant the biggest ever cash rise for pensioners on fixed incomes.
	Council tax has now been frozen in most councils, predominantly Conservative ones, for four years in a row. I pay tribute to my local authority, which in the next couple of weeks will set its fourth council tax freeze, in stark contrast to when Labour ran the council and put it up by a disgraceful 42% in just three years. Fear not: they were booted out of office on the back of that. It is right that the Government have encouraged and incentivised councils to freeze council tax.
	Finally, in respect of youth unemployment, we need to encourage young people to consider becoming young entrepreneurs. I welcome the fact that 400,000 new businesses have been created since the general election. However, more young people need to understand that they do not just have to go to university or do an apprenticeship, because they might have the ability to set up their own business. Young people have the enthusiasm, energy and risk-taking ability to do so. I did a business degree at university. Of the 350 students on the course, I was the only one who went on to run my own business because entrepreneurial flair and risk-taking were taught out of us. Obviously, I was not paying enough attention. I therefore welcome organisations, such as Outset in Swindon, that provide mentoring for young people so that they can use their enthusiasm, having been inspired by TV programmes such as “Dragons’ Den” and “The Apprentice”, to become the next generation of wealth creators and provide further employment opportunities.

Sheila Gilmore: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), because I want to counter some of the myths that have been perpetuated. It is constantly stated that Labour Governments always leave office with unemployment higher than when they came to office. That is not true. Between 1945 and 1951, unemployment fell under a Labour Government. For much of the 1950s and 1960s, the position was very stable. Let us contrast that with the 18 years of Conservative Government between 1979 and—[Interruption.] Government Members can brush it aside if they wish, but for 13 of those 18 years, unemployment was higher than 10%. When the Conservative Government left office in 1997, unemployment was brought down by the Labour Government and it fell in every year until the financial crash.

Andrew Percy: It’s somebody else’s fault.

Sheila Gilmore: It would be very strange to place the blame for a world financial crash on the Government of one country.
	The other myth that has been perpetuated is that pensioners have this Government to thank for the largest cash rise in pensions ever because they introduced the triple lock. It did not happen because of the triple lock; it happened because inflation was so high in that year, which was largely due to the increase in VAT. If Members
	care to remember, it was said that that was never going to happen. The rate of inflation is the reason why the cash rise in pensions had to be so high. For pensioners, it was merely an inflationary cash rise. It had nothing whatever to do with the triple lock. If nothing had changed in the policy, the rise would have been exactly the same.
	I want to touch on what all this means for a lot of people. We hear a lot about all the private sector jobs that have been created. However, nearly 500,000 of those private sector jobs are in the health and social care field, and most of those are funded by the public sector. They are private sector jobs only because they have been outsourced. For far too many of those employees, the working conditions have worsened. Earlier, a Government Member sought to intervene to say that Labour councils have outsourced contracts. I know of Labour councils that have outsourced contracts. My council has such contracts because it inherited them from the previous Liberal Democrat council.
	Private firms are operating social care services on the basis of zero-hours contracts. People who work in the social care sector, much like the McDonald’s workers who have been discussed, wait at home to see how many hours they will get each week. Not only is that bad for the employee who never knows how much she will earn from one week to the next, but it is absolutely atrocious for the person for whom the care is being provided. It is no wonder that people do not know who their carer will be on any given day when the work is organised in that fashion.
	The Government cannot escape responsibility for that situation. Why are councils finding themselves in that position? In Scotland it is largely because we have now had the council tax freeze, which has been mentioned, for six or seven years. It is not properly funded; local councils are strapped for cash, and as a result they are looking for experience in how to provide services. If a care service is outsourced, for example, it provides very poor employment circumstances for people.
	Another problem that people encounter when on such contracts is how they organise child care. How can they do that if they never know when they will be able to work? One couple I spoke to at the weekend told me that they had to give up the possibility of both working, because they could not organise child care around their work contracts. That has knock-on consequences not just on their working conditions, but also on other aspects of their working life. These real issues are happening in all our constituencies, and we need to change that.

Alok Sharma: This Opposition day debate is no more than a fig leaf covering the fact that the Labour party has absolutely no policies to offer. It is still a blank piece of paper when it comes to policies. I find it amazing that every time we hear from Labour Members, they always give the impression that they have some sort of monopoly on compassion. Is that the same compassion that meant that unemployment and youth unemployment were higher in 2010 than in 1997? Is it the same compassion that meant that Labour missed all its child poverty targets, that the gap between rich and poor grew wider, and that left us with a record budget deficit for which we have still had no apology whatsoever?
	The way to improve job security and tackle the cost of living is to grow the economy and get business confidence going, which leads to more jobs and rising prosperity. That is exactly what the Government are doing by cutting taxes, getting rid of unnecessary red tape, investing in our young people and infrastructure, and welcoming foreign inward investment.
	Let me say a little about Reading, the town that I represent and where I grew up, because I am incredibly proud that it is an economic powerhouse not just in the Thames valley but in the country as a whole. What have the Government been doing for young people in Reading? They have been investing some £4 million in the last year in the pupil premium, providing 3,000 new apprenticeships, investing millions more in new school places, and bringing youth unemployment down to 225 in December 2013, compared with 635 when we came into government. The key is getting students ready for the workplace and, like many of my colleagues, I have run careers fares. At the last one, 1,200 students came along to talk to 60 companies. I run employability workshops with local employers, which are the sort of thing we ought to be doing to ensure that our young people feel there is a way forward.
	Let me read a few comments that I received from people who attended that employability workshop. Navjit Gill said:
	“The interview and networking skills session was really useful. I learned a lot about what to do in interviews.”
	Elijah Seville-Williams said:
	“The workshop taught me about interview techniques which will prepare me for getting a job later.”
	That is what we should be doing, as Members of Parliament.
	Many employers in my constituency are creating many jobs—small companies as well as larger ones. Tesco has just set up a new distribution centre and I was pleased to be part of supporting that. There are almost 1,200 new jobs, but also 85 jobs for the long-term unemployed. I went to a graduation ceremony last year for people who had not had a job for a long time but had finally found employment through that scheme. It was an incredibly emotional graduation. People were there, with their grandchildren and parents, from across the social spectrum—real people whose lives were being turned around. The reason why companies such as Tesco are confident about creating those jobs is that they have been given that confidence as a result of this Government’s policies.
	Business confidence is up in the Thames valley. The Thames Valley Business Barometer published a few weeks ago showed that eight out of 10 businesses are more confident in the economy, 50% reported an increase in the number of employees, while about two thirds forecast a rise in profitability in 2014 that will mean they can employ more people.
	Finally, one thing the Leader of the Opposition has managed to do brilliantly, even though he is not running the country, is destroy value in the private sector. Look at what he said about splitting up banks. As soon as he made that statement, £1 billion was wiped off the share price of RBS and Lloyds. That affects not City fat cats or bankers—or whoever the Opposition are currently bashing—but the pension money that is invested on behalf of my hard-working constituents who pay their
	taxes and invest in their pensions, only to find that the Leader of the Opposition destroys the value of that pension. That is not good enough.
	If the Opposition want to know what happens if taxes are increased and entrepreneurs are hit, they should look at what is happening in socialist France, where growth is projected to be a third of what it will be in the UK in 2014. If the Opposition understood anything about jobs, the economy and what is necessary to create security and prosperity, they would vote against their own motion this evening. I urge everyone to reject the motion.

Jim Sheridan: As I said earlier, it is 10 years since 23 Chinese cockle pickers lost their lives on the shores of Morecambe bay, working under the instructions of an illegal gangmaster. There is now clear evidence that these illegal gangmasters have moved into other sectors, such as construction, care and leisure. They are also causing significant problems in other areas. I am delighted that my party will commit in its manifesto to extending the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to those sectors, but I wish the coalition Government would do likewise. I shall not hold my breath.
	There is a myth going around that people want to work zero-hours contracts. Let us walk in the shoes of a young constituent of mine to see how zero-hours contracts work. The name of the company he works for is SGL, also known as SecuriGroup, and the majority of its work is for the UK Government. The company is not operating to the working time directive. My constituent says, “For example, over the Christmas and New Year period, I worked from Monday to Thursday, 8 am to 8 pm with no breaks. Then on Friday and Saturday nights I worked from 8 pm to 12 am the next day in Glasgow night clubs. During the New Year week I was asked to go straight from working at a school building site to work at a Glasgow night club. If I refuse, I don’t get any work over the following weeks.”
	On pay, my constituent says, “I was also told I would only receive the minimum wage of £6.31 per hour over the two-week festive period, and I won’t get a Christmas payslip until next week or a New Year payslip until the following week. I was paid weekly and charged £13 from my salary for my jacket and tie. I was also charged another £3 for my hat. I have not received any uniform shirts, trousers or shoes, which I have to provide myself. For the first few months I was working at a school building site in Glasgow, where I worked two 16-hour shifts, 4 pm to 8 am, one 12-hour shift, 8 am to 8 pm, and two four-hour shifts, 8 pm to 12 am or 9 pm to 1 am. No breaks were given during the 16-hour shifts.”
	That is what happens under zero-hours contracts, and that is probably not the worst example. After receiving the letter from my young constituent, I wrote to the company concerned, SecuriGroup, and the managing director, a Mr Russell Kerr, replied, rather aggressively. He ends his letter by saying:
	“Any legislation that improves the terms and conditions for our people would be welcomed by SecuriGroup.”
	That knocks on the head the idea that employers will be upset if we bring in legislation to stop zero-hours contracts. Mr Kerr suggests that it would be no problem.
	The Government could do a lot to end zero-hours contracts. Action is needed on the Government’s contracting culture. As the main contractor in the nation, we cannot wash our hands of employment practices further down the supply chain. We must award contracts only to those employers who police their entire supply chain and eliminate insecure employment. There must also be systems of liability to make the ultimate contractor responsible for employment practices across their supply chains.
	There is a serious problem out there: illegal gangmasters are exploiting people and undermining the terms and conditions of indigenous workers. We know that is happening and we should take action to ensure that it does not. There are other connotations, too. It causes problems in our community when people are perceived, wrongly, to be coming in and doing jobs that indigenous workers should be doing. We need to deal with that. The biggest myth of all is that people want to work zero-hours contracts. I have yet to meet anyone who has said to me, “Mr Sheridan, I would like to work a zero-hours contract.” I do not think I will in my lifetime.

Priti Patel: I would like to begin my contribution by paying tribute to businesses up and down the country, particularly in Essex and in my constituency, for the jobs they have created. Under this Government, unemployment in my constituency has fallen by almost 80% since it peaked in 2009 under Labour. In the last year alone, unemployment has fallen by 28% in Witham, resulting in almost 400 more people in work and off benefits. That should be welcomed and I would like to think everybody in the House does welcome it.
	In October, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions came to Witham, and when he visited a jobs and apprenticeship fair that I hosted, he saw the confidence and the large number of local businesses looking to recruit and take on new staff. I thank everybody who was involved in the jobs fair. As I have said repeatedly in this House, Essex is the county of entrepreneurs. With the right Government policies in place, we will continue to create jobs, wealth and prosperity.
	The one thing that would do the most damage to job creation and employment prospects in my constituency would be for the Government to follow the appalling policies and gimmicks supported by the Labour party. In the previous general election, Labour planned to increase the small profits rate and corporation tax on business. It plotted to increase the burden on employers through national insurance contributions, and planned to increase fuel duty. It left office with a regulatory and compliance regime in place that cost small and medium-sized enterprises in the region of £17 billion. Those measures would cost jobs, take money out of the economy and harm economic growth.
	The Labour party has no answer to the economic challenges facing this country, and it has zero credibility when it comes to the debate on jobs. I have listened to the contributions from the Opposition this afternoon. What we have learned—not just this afternoon but in the past four years—is that the Labour party has no faith in the entrepreneurial spirit of British business, which has created 1.6 million private sector jobs since the general election. Labour would tax and borrow
	more, expand the public sector and take Britain back to the dinosaur days of the failed socialist policies of the past; notwithstanding the fact, of course, that the Labour leader supports exactly what President Hollande is doing in France.
	My constituents and businesses in Witham want, and have, a Government who get behind them and are committed to supporting job creation. When we think of the £17 billion regulatory burden left by the Labour Government—the equivalent of 11 times the amount of money this Government are currently investing in funding apprenticeships—even the modest savings on red tape that this Government are making can make a real difference in freeing up funds for businesses to invest in jobs and economic growth.
	Naturally, we have to reject the Opposition motion on that basis alone. It is completely unviable and demonstrates once again the economic illiteracy of the Labour party. Creating jobs and getting more people into employment are central this Government’s long-term economic plan to build a stronger and more competitive economy, in sharp contrast to the Labour party and the motion it has tabled. That is why we will reject the motion.

Stephen Timms: We have had an excellent debate. When the current Government were elected, we were promised that new policies would lead to
	“steady growth and falling unemployment”.
	Unfortunately, however, they did not. For three years, there was hardly any growth and unemployment stayed high. Despite all the benefit cuts, over this Parliament the Government will spend £15 billion more on social security and tax credits than they said they would just after the election. As a result, more young people have been out of work for over a year than at any time for 20 years. We urgently need to bring those young people, at the start of what should be their working lives, back into the labour market. In addition, more over-25s have been out of work for over two years than at any time since 1997.
	After a long delay, jobs are finally being created, but the priority now is to bring back into the labour market those who have been locked out of it for much too long. That is the damaging legacy of three years without growth, and it needs tackling urgently, otherwise we will face a whole generation of lost economic potential.

Andrew Percy: On the subject of legacy and long-term youth unemployment, does the right hon. Gentleman regret the previous Government’s legacy? Under them, the gap between the best-performing and worst-performing schools widened, so we now have a group of young people relatively far less well educated than many of their peers.

Stephen Timms: What I am worried about is the apparent collapse of careers advice in schools, with more and more employers saying to us that young people are not getting the advice they need to plan for future employment. I am extremely worried about that.
	Despite this legacy, our proposed job guarantee will deliver, unlike the Work programme, which was rightly described by the Chancellor in last summer’s spending
	review statement as “underperforming”, and the Youth Contract, whose wage incentives have proved a hopeless damp squib. The Secretary of State was right at the outset of the debate to commend the record on employment support in Wales, where the Jobs Growth Wales programme, reflecting our job guarantee, has done a great deal better.
	This debate has focused on those in work. For the first time, the majority of people living in poverty are in households where somebody is in work, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). A staggering number of people in work are resorting to food banks, in Wales and elsewhere, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s agreement to meet representatives from the Trussell Trust, which co-ordinates food banks, next week, overruling the childish refusal to do so by DWP Ministers over the last several months.
	Month after month, it is the same. Last month, inflation was more than 2% and pay rises were below 1%. That is what people are experiencing. For the first time—we had an exchange about this earlier—over 1.4 million people are working part-time because they cannot find a full-time job. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) reminded us that the House of Commons Library calculated that the average household was more than £1,600 worse off than at the time of the last election.
	The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), whom I am glad is back in the Chamber, made a thoughtful speech essentially arguing that there was nothing new about these problems. He should look at the quarterly Asda “Mumdex”briefing, which I think has been sent to all of us:
	“Last year, we saw Mums cutting back on luxuries like holidays, gadgets and meals out. Now families are struggling to afford basics like heating and petrol.”
	The intensity of the problem is new. YouGov found last year that the number of people feeling insecure at work had almost doubled since the election—6.5 million then, 12 million now—and the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) was right to highlight the case of job insecurity at a power plant in his constituency. That kind of problem is widespread.
	Our motion refers to health and safety changes. I had an exchange with the Secretary of State about this earlier, but I want to make a bit more of the point. This year marks the 40th anniversary of Labour’s Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The disability benefits Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), rightly told me in a written answer last month:
	“Workplace health and safety has made an important contribution to vastly reducing the numbers of people killed, injured or made unwell by their work in the last 40 years.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 669W.]
	That is as a consequence of our legislation.
	The Secretary of State reminded us that Ministers commissioned Professor Ragnar Löfstedt of King’s College London to review health and safety legislation. Some people think it should be dramatically cut back, but not the Secretary of State, and not Professor Löfstedt either. He wrote:
	“I have concluded that, in general, there is no case for radically altering current health and safety legislation…There is a view across the board that the existing regulatory requirements are broadly right”.
	Ministers said in response that they supported the recommendations of the review, but what they are doing is different. They are trying to shift the balance, even though they have been unable to find evidence to support them. I take the Secretary of State’s point—he is not responsible for this—but in an interview last month Professor Löfstedt described what is happening as ideology in place of evidence-based policy, and safety at work is at risk as a result. I want to highlight in particular the Government’s removal of civil liability for employers breaching health and safety law in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which Professor Löfstedt picked out in his report one year afterwards. Given all this, there is now growing concern that health and safety is being put at risk.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) highlighted employment rights and the case of INEOS in his constituency. The qualification period for protection against unfair dismissal has been doubled, from one year to two, and fees introduced for employment tribunals. The Government went so far as to consult on the proposal for no-fault dismissal made by Mr Adrian Beecroft in his infamous report. If that had been implemented, it would have allowed employers to fire people at will.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) pointed out at the start of the debate, the minimum wage has fallen by 5% in real terms since the election. The Chancellor has hinted that he plans to do something about that for next year—better late than never; let us hope he delivers—but he should look at enforcement as well. An estimated 300,000 people are paid less than the minimum wage, but there have been just two prosecutions in four years. The Secretary of State said that enforcement had been sorted out, but where is the evidence? Since 2010, Ministers have announced three times that they will name and shame firms that flout the national minimum wage, but so far nobody has been named or shamed. We need much more effective enforcement, including by giving powers to local authorities.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) highlighted the explosion in zero-hours contracts. The Resolution Foundation has found that average pay on them is 40% less than on regular contracts. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) gave us a graphic example from his constituency of the reality of being on such a contract. We need a serious effort from Government to promote the living wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) argued for “make work pay” contracts, whereby firms signing up to the living wage under our proposal in the first year of the next Parliament would get a tax rebate in that year of up to £1,000 for every low-paid worker who gets a pay rise, the Exchequer cost being entirely covered by increased tax and national insurance revenue.
	Step by step, we are setting out how we will deal with the problems this Government’s policies will leave behind— growing insecurity and a big squeeze on family incomes in the middle and elsewhere. What we are proposing is practical, effective action to tackle job insecurity, make workplaces safer, improve pay, particularly for the low paid, and make the cost of living more manageable. We want to build a one nation economy, and the sooner the better.

Esther McVey: Only this Labour party could call a debate on job insecurity a week after it was announced that a record number of people have got a job. Such impeccable timing makes me think that the motion must have been written by the shadow Chancellor, for it reminds me of the time he predicted that unemployment would soar by 1 million just before it fell by 1 million to a record low or the time he called a triple-dip recession just before official figures showed we had not even had a double-dip recession. In fact, the only recession that took place was when the Labour Government were in power.
	And here we have a motion on job insecurity just after we have had the biggest rise in jobs in 40 years—more than 30 million employed—while unemployment has fallen in every part of the country. It is clear that even Labour Members were disappointed by the motion and had no faith in it, because the Opposition Benches were empty throughout the afternoon. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) has not returned to the Chamber, although it was he who moved the motion, but I can tell the House that in his constituency the claimant count is down by 20% and the youth claimant count is down by 36%. No wonder he is not present to hear those facts. As for the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the claimant count in his constituency is down by 27% and the youth claimant count is down by 30%.
	Labour Members may talk about job insecurity, but the biggest guarantee of job insecurity is a Labour Government. If Members want the facts, I can tell them that unemployment rose by nearly half a million under Labour, female unemployment rose by 24%, youth unemployment rose by 45%, and long-term unemployment almost doubled between 2008 and 2010.
	The truth is that Britain is poorer because of the recession over which the Labour Government presided. As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it,
	“That household incomes are lower than before the recession and are lower than they were in 2010 is hardly surprising. We have just lived through the deepest recession in generations”.
	We are living beyond our means, but given that they were borrowing £160 billion every year, what do the Opposition expect? What we needed to do—and what we have done, in remarkably good time—was turn the economy around in three years. We did what we said we would do: we stabilised the economy, rebalanced the economy, and grew the economy. Even the International Monetary Fund has said that it is now the fastest-growing economy in the western world, and Mark Carney has said:
	“The economy is growing at its fastest pace in 6 years… The recovery has finally taken hold.”
	That has happened under this coalition Government.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Esther McVey: I should love to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Minister is giving a glowing report of the coalition Government’s success, but will she tell us whether she has had sight of what now seems to be the suppressed report on food aid that landed on
	Ministers’ desks a year ago and has not surfaced? Will she give an undertaking to produce that report, which deals with the causes of poverty among working people?

Esther McVey: I have not had sight of the report from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because I am a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, but once it has been authorised and released, the hon. Gentleman can read it.
	Let us return to today’s debate. We heard a great deal of what I would describe as misinformation about the number of people in part-time work. Since the election, the number of people in full-time work has risen by 1 million; three out of four people are in full-time work, and we have stabilised the position. In the last quarter, the number of people wanting to move from part-time to full-time work fell for the first time ever, and—Opposition Members may be startled to hear this—between 2005 and 2010, the number doubled. That is the truth of Labour’s legacy.
	Opposition Members talk of zero-hours contracts, but the number of zero-hours contracts is the same as it was in 2000. The 75% increase happened between 2004 and 2009. Moreover, if we want to think about getting our houses in order, we should note that the council with the worst record for zero-hours contracts is Labour-run Doncaster council, which is in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition and also in the constituency of one of the ladies on the Opposition Front Bench.
	Turning to the contributions of those on the Government Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) talked some good common sense about people getting their foot on the ladder, job progression, the fact that the number of apprenticeships has doubled in her constituency, and how this Government are helping families and young people into work. She also questioned what the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) meant when he said, “Don’t take any old job; some jobs are different from other jobs.” There was some real job snobbery from the Opposition Front Bench.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) talked about youth unemployment being down by 25% in his constituency, and how he does not talk down the economy, but instead talks it up because that is positive and it helps people into work.

Chuka Umunna: I ask the Minister to withdraw the comments she has just made. I was quite clear that of course we welcome people getting back into work. My point was—and I am sure she will agree with me—that we aspire for more than that for the people we represent. We do not just want them to get a job; we want them to get good-quality jobs which are secure and well paid. That is the point I was making. She was here. Perhaps she will clarify her comments.

Esther McVey: Well, I am glad the hon. Gentleman has decided to return to the Chamber. I explained earlier how unemployment has significantly fallen in his constituency, but he was not here to hear that. His words are on the record, and we all heard them. Should he wish to read them back tomorrow, he can do so in Hansard.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) talked with great clarity about the great recession that we were left with, how we have sorted it out and taken
	significant strides in building up the economy, and what we have done in terms of exports and developing manufacturing, so that now for the first time since the ’70s we export more cars than we import, and we are now exporting more outside Europe than inside Europe. All these things have happened under our stewardship.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) talked about how people can set up their own business, and how that is a real engine for social mobility, and how this Government are helping people through the new enterprise allowance. Under us, businesses are setting up at the rate of 2,000 a month. That is what we want—young people setting up in business, older people and women setting up in business. Those are the sorts of policies we are coming forward with.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) rightly said that this motion is vague, confused, and just lacking really, rather like Labour’s policies in this entire area. He also said business confidence is up, and not just in his area but right across the country. There are reports that say so: the CBI and PricewaterhouseCoopers have said optimism is up. Do people want to take on people? Yes they do. Do people want to give people jobs? Yes they do. They feel that for the first time.
	The whole motion did not really make much sense. It never really looked at what had happened under Labour’s stewardship. It never really looked at how when we talk about the tax credits bill and the benefits bill, we say it might have gone up a little bit; it will have gone up by 5% in five years, yet under Labour it had gone up by 20%. What we are doing is rebalancing the economy, bringing the spend down, and living within our means.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) talked about unemployment in her constituency. I am pleased to be able to tell her that unemployment is down 26% on this year and 23% on—

Rosie Winterton: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question put accordingly.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 223, Noes 286.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.
	That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Designated Activities) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2013, be approved.

Local Government

That the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2013, be approved.

Representation of the People

That the draft Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4 and Consequential Provision) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 6 November 2013, be approved.
	That the draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 July 2013, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Financial Management

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12772/13 and Addenda 1 to 5, a Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests: Fight against fraud 2012 Annual Report, and unnumbered European Union Documents, the European Court of Auditors’ Annual Report concerning the financial year 2012 and the European Court of Auditors’ Annual Report on the activities funded by the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds; agrees that budgetary discipline and robust financial management at all levels remains crucial, including to support domestic efforts to tackle the deficit and debt, especially given the continuing fiscal constraints and fragile economic recovery across the EU; believes that it is unacceptable that the EU budget has failed to be given an unqualified audit by the European Court of Auditors for the nineteenth year; supports the Government’s decision to vote against granting discharge to the EU budget and to press the Commission for a clear action plan to address the European Court of Auditors’ recommendations relating to the European Development Fund; and encourages the Government to continue to work with other like-minded Member States to put pressure on the Commission and all those involved in the management of EU funds for clear, positive and urgent improvement to the quality of EU spending.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

CHINA CLAY INDUSTRY (JOB LOSSES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Stephen Gilbert: I rise tonight to speak about the recent news of significant job losses in my constituency in the china clay mining industry. First, let me put it on the record that I, on behalf of the communities that I represent, thank the emergency services, local councils, Cornwall council, the Environment Agency and scores of volunteers who have spent many hours over the past two days tackling the damage caused by the recent storms that have hit Cornwall.
	In recent hours, people in Cornwall will have come together in the finest tradition of the Cornish motto, “One and all”. Although it remains my privilege to represent a part of the country that demonstrably shows such community spirit, there are issues that the Government must tackle to improve resilience to flooding events and to ensure that they do their part in the same way that local communities are doing theirs.
	Mr Deputy Speaker, you and other hon. Members will be aware that the china clay industry in Cornwall is more than 260 years old and has played a formative part in Cornwall’s cultural history. On his discovery of china clay in 1746, William Cookworthy began to experiment to produce hard-paste porcelain and finally patented his formula in 1768. With control over the use of china clay and china stone for porcelain manufacture, Cookworthy opened his own pottery in Plymouth, moving to Bristol in 1770. Four years later, Cookworthy retired and transferred his business to his partner, Richard Champion, who almost immediately applied for an extension of the original patent. However, that was met with fierce opposition from the potters of Staffordshire, led by Josiah Wedgwood, who were keen to use china clay for their own wares. After Champion’s monopoly was broken by the Staffordshire companies they leased their own pits in Cornwall, but by 1830 they had given up control of production to others and bought their clay from agents or groups of adventurers who would later found the first china clay companies.
	Production increased with the discovery of other uses of china clay and by 1858 42 companies were producing about 65,000 tonnes of clay a year. Today, Imerys Minerals Ltd is the single producer of china clay in the area and almost 1.5 million tonnes of clay is produced annually in Cornwall and Devon.
	There is no settlement in my constituency untouched by the clay industry. Sky tips still tower above St Austell bay and intricate networks of viaducts and old settling pits still stretch out from wooded valleys. Many of the coastal towns, including Newquay, have at some point been centres of the export of china clay around the world. Like many parts of our country with a traditional industry that has dominated local employment for decades, many generations of families have worked in the industry with, until recently, a presumption that there were well-paid jobs for life.
	The decline of the industry has been mirrored by the decline of some communities in Cornwall. Communities that used to be aspirational have had their sights set lower and communities that used to be outward-looking
	have turned in on themselves. The sad reality is that in many of the former china clay mining villages in my constituency—such as Bugle, Nanpean, St Dennis and Penwithick—we have seen a transition from generations of families working in the same industry to a generation of families not working at all. Educational attainment is low, health outcomes are poor and families struggle to make ends meet. Despite intervention from successive Governments, regenerating the communities will take time. That time means that some of the people affected will not be able to make the most of their lives.
	Let us also be clear that the modern clay industry contributes significantly to the economy of Cornwall and that should not be underestimated. Worth £155 million per year, it is a huge financial asset to the duchy and is one of the UK’s most valuable mineral exports, second only to North sea oil and gas.
	Globally, Britain is the world’s fourth largest producer and exporter of china clay and Cornwall is at the very heart of the industry. Indeed, china clay from Cornwall accounts for 88% of total UK sales and none more so than that from the pits around St Austell. Huge white pits make a good third of my constituency look like a lunar landscape, as anyone who has flown into Newquay airport will be able to attest.
	The industry, however, has struggled in recent years. In 2010, 1 million dry tonnes of clay were sold, but in 1988 that figure was almost three times higher at 2.8 million tonnes. As with other industries, emerging markets in Brazil and China have undercut exports and alternative processes, in paper processing for example, have reduced demand. As a result the number of people employed locally has plummeted from a high point of some 13,000 across Cornwall and Devon to just about 900 today. In an industry that is located among a few small towns, the recent news of extra job losses is acutely felt.
	Imerys, a French-owned company and the largest producer of china clay in the world, acquired English China Clays in St Austell back in 1999 for £756 million, along with its then 2,000 employees. Sadly, recent job losses have been all too common in the industry. In 2006, Imerys made 800 people redundant, which was a devastating blow to the communities affected in both Devon and Cornwall. At the time, the local community was told that these losses would shore up the operation and provide additional resilience and that the jobs left would be secure in the long term. However, it has been announced in recent weeks that the company will be shedding a further 70 jobs. Some hon. Members might think that 70 is a relatively small number of job losses, but it is not just 70 jobs; it is 70 families, 70 homes and 70 stories of personal hardship. The news is of course devastating for the families involved, as it will likely mean hardship and stress for months, if not years, to come.
	Furthermore, some skilled, technical jobs at the Imerys laboratories in Par Moor are being relocated outside Cornwall, leaving people with a stark choice: to tear up their family roots and move up country to keep an insecure job, or to lose it altogether. Put simply, job losses, industrial decline and outsourcing of skilled work from Cornwall are exactly the opposite of what this Government are trying to achieve nationally and locally.
	As if that was not bad enough for a part of the world that is already struggling, there is potentially worse to come if the Government do not act. Of particular
	concern is the European Commission’s current investigation into the aggregates levy. The levy was introduced over 10 years ago to discourage the use of primary sources of aggregates from deposits beside rivers and quarries and to encourage the use of recycled or secondary materials instead.
	There were, and are, good environmental reasons for the levy, but the large producers do not like it, of course, and have been lobbying for its removal for some years. Last year, having failed to convince the UK Treasury, some persuaded the European Commission that the levy was unfair and should be investigated as a possible unfair state aid to those companies selling secondary aggregates and avoiding the levy. The Commission launched an investigation and the Treasury then decided to suspend the levy.
	The china clay industry in Cornwall is directly affected by the suspension of the levy. The industry sells secondary aggregates as a by-product of china clay production. For every tonne of china clay produced, some 9 tonnes of waste have to be disposed of, mostly in the large tips that are a feature of the mid-Cornwall skyline. However, some of the waste can be processed further into secondary aggregates, for example for use in the construction of the London Olympic stadium at Stratford, and there is growing demand for secondary aggregates for the many building and construction projects currently under way, particularly in the south-east, where the customer wants to demonstrate a green policy by using secondary aggregates, rather than primary ones.
	Secondary aggregates can be transported either by rail or by sea through the port of Fowey. It is estimated that that market could grow to over 1 million tonnes within a few years. Of course, we all know that a green alternative must not cost the customer much more, so the business relies on being exempt from the £2 per tonne aggregate levy to balance the additional cost of transport. All that is at risk if the European Commission is persuaded by the major primary aggregate producers that china clay waste is not actually a waste but is mined to sell as aggregate. It is an odd argument: who would bother to mine it when there is perhaps 500 million tonnes—the result of decades of china clay production—sitting in tips in and around St Austell?
	The Commission’s consultation on the matter has just closed, and I am grateful that my right hon. Friends in the Treasury have already submitted a helpful and robust response, no doubt recognising that it is in the Treasury’s interests not only to retain the levy, but to increase it to encourage further the use of secondary aggregates. I, too, have submitted a robust response, as has Graham Watson, the Member of the European Parliament for the South West of England.
	Let us be clear that between 300 and 500 jobs in the St Austell area are at risk if china clay waste loses the exemption from the aggregate levy. Tonight, I would like to reiterate my plea that the Government ensure that the European Commission is given the full facts and that Ministers lobby as hard as possible to allow the exemption to continue, for good environmental reasons, for Cornish jobs and for more revenue for the Treasury. Those are three wins for which I think it is worth us, as a Government, fighting.
	The china clay industry is as much a part of Cornwall’s history as tin mining, fishing or farming. It remains one of Cornwall’s largest employers and is responsible for
	millions of pounds going into the wider economy each year, and it still employs just under 1,000 people. It is an industry that I am proud to have spent some time working in, as did my mother, my grandfather and many other members of my family in Cornwall. The industry deserves recognition from Government for the vital role that it plays in helping to support the Cornish economy, and recognition from all of us for the wider role that china clay plays in our lives. From paints to plastics, and pharmaceuticals to paper, china clay is one of the unsung heroes of the modern world.
	I ask the Minister to recognise the industry’s role in Cornwall, to join me in meeting senior industry representatives to discuss what more the Government can do to ensure its continued success, and to work to ensure that every resource of Government is put in place to help and support those who recently found out that they have lost their jobs. The china clay industry remains as vital to Cornwall’s future as it has been to our past. I hope the Government will join me today to work towards ensuring that this is not another great British industry that we let slip out of our hands.

Michael Fallon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) on securing a debate on this important issue. We recognise the importance of the china clay industry to his constituency and to the region as a whole. It is inextricably woven into the industrial fabric of the west country. Any visitor to St Austell is, as he said, likely to be struck by the impressive sharp peaks known as the “Cornish Alps”, which dominate the surrounding landscape and represent the most visible part of a story that, as he told us, goes back some 250 years.
	Imerys is a major employer in the south-west, and its plans to make redundancies as part of a restructuring exercise following the recent merger will clearly have come as a major blow to the employees concerned, to their families, and to the communities in which they live. I fully appreciate the potential implications of this for St Austell and the surrounding area. This was of course a commercial decision for the company. I understand that it has been forced to make some difficult decisions in order to remain competitive and to safeguard the future of its operations in the United Kingdom.
	Naturally, we want to keep as many jobs as possible here in the United Kingdom, but it is not for the Government to tell companies how to run their businesses. We certainly recognise that they face fierce competition from low-cost economies, particularly in basic raw materials such as china clay. We operate in an increasingly globalised, competitive environment and, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, the Government have to be careful not to respond with protectionist measures.
	I believe that the redundancies to which my hon. Friend has drawn the House’s attention will take place towards the end of February and will be voluntary. As recently as 22 January, Jobcentre Plus approached the company to offer support through its rapid response service. Imerys has engaged Penna, a third-party provider of support, to advise the people affected. I want to tell my hon. Friend that Jobcentre Plus stands ready to
	work alongside Penna and Imerys should it be asked. Although these redundancies are a commercial matter for Imerys, we are working with the company on the important issue of energy costs, and UK Trade & Investment is actively engaged with the company as regards assistance with exports. More widely, other Government measures are in place to promote growth and job creation in the Cornwall region.
	Britain is one of the world’s largest producers of china clay after Brazil, the United States and China. China clay is our second most valuable minerals export after hydrocarbons. However, china clay sales have been on a declining trend since 1988. Increased competition in the global markets for paper clays has reduced profitability for many producers. Brazil has enormous deposits of high quality clay in the Amazon basin and low production costs, making it highly competitive globally, despite the additional shipping costs. The industry, including Imerys, has responded by effecting structural change and investing in more efficient production methods. It has restructured its production in Cornwall significantly since 2006, and that has sadly resulted in the loss of over 800 jobs over this period. However, as my hon. Friend will know, there have also been closures in this industry in other parts of the world, including the United States.
	I understand the pressures being faced by the energy intensive industries, such as the china clay sector, in terms of their international competitiveness, and I am extremely concerned about the impact of relatively high energy prices. The Government are very clear that decarbonisation does not and should not mean deindustrialisation. There would be no advantage—for our economy or in terms of global emissions reductions—in simply forcing UK businesses to relocate abroad.
	On electricity prices, we have implemented measures to reduce the impact of policy on the costs of electricity for the most electricity-intensive industries. We are arguing in Europe to avoid another renewables target, which would simply serve to increase European electricity prices further.
	We have already begun to implement the £380 million compensation scheme, which runs until March 2016, for electricity-intensive businesses, to help offset the indirect costs of the carbon price floor and the European Union emissions trading system, subject to state aid guidelines.
	Imerys responded to our consultation on the compensation scheme and made a case that the mining of clays and kaolin are electricity intensive and, as such, should be included in the compensation scheme for the indirect costs of the carbon price floor. Based on the information Imerys provided, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will seek to compensate the mining of kaolin and clays, along with a range of other electricity-intensive sectors, as part of our state aid case to the European Commission.
	I recognise that the job losses have been announced against a difficult economic backdrop for the region. The Cornwall economy faces a number of challenges, which are reflected in low wages, low productivity and relatively low skills attainment. The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly local enterprise partnership now leads local partners in analysing the local economy, building partnerships across key delivery agencies and prioritising investment in growth. The partnership is in the process
	of developing its strategic economic plan and investment framework, which will deliver sustainable growth through innovation, increasing competitiveness, consolidating existing assets and capitalising on opportunities presented by the region’s distinctive natural resources. The plans balance support for bedrock industries, such as food, farming and marine, with support for new industries, such as wave energy, geothermal and digital media.
	The partnership will have the opportunity to negotiate a growth deal with Government during the period from April to June and to secure its share of the £2 billion local growth fund, which will come into operation from April 2015. In addition, the regional growth fund is providing grants to small and medium-sized enterprises and enabling infrastructure in the region, and just over £6 million has been made available through the Growing Places fund. As a category A assisted area, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly is also eligible for convergence funding from the EU, with some £520 million allocated for the seven-year period beginning this July.
	The Newquay Aerohub enterprise zone, centred on Newquay airport on the north coast of Cornwall, will include areas with airside access. The provision of substantial hangar, manufacturing and office space is expected to deliver more than 5,000 jobs. The focus will be on aviation and aerospace activity, including aircraft maintenance, aerospace manufacturing, flight testing and trials of unmanned air vehicles and related training activity.
	Plymouth was one of the 20 locations announced in wave 2 as being able to bid to central Government for a city deal. It will be a twin-LEP city deal with Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, and we hope that that will contribute to a deal based on strengths in advanced engineering
	and design, marine renewable energy, maritime and sub-sea operations and supporting technologies. The deal seeks to do that by increasing the commercialisation of research in these areas and increasing exports from its high growth.
	On the specific issue quite rightly raised by my hon. Friend, he will understand that the aggregates levy is a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury. He has already informed the House about our vigorous response to the state aid investigation. The European Commission is of course perfectly entitled to ask questions about any of these levies and schemes, and we have a number of cases before it at the moment, but as a member state, we are equally entitled to respond robustly and to defend the various arrangements we have put in place. I am not at the moment able to give him any more information about the exact state of the investigation or the timetable involved, but I am happy to write to him as soon as I get more information.
	My hon. Friend made a powerful case about the uses of secondary aggregates both in construction and as one of the greener sources of material, and I do not see any need to add to what he has said.
	Finally, let me accept my hon. Friend’s invitation to meet him and the industry. As the Commission investigation draws to a close, I would be happy to see him and the industry to discuss all the issues in more detail. I again thank him for drawing the attention of the House to this important industry and the future that I believe it still has.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.